MD of TNSTC found guilty under Contempt of Court Act

MADURAI: The managing director (MD) of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC), Madurai division, G. Palraj was found guilty under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court (CC) Act by the Madras high court Madurai bench on Thursday as he had failed to extend terminal benefits to his former employee even after the court's order.
However, he was discharged from punishment under the proviso of the Act as he tendered an unconditional apology by pointing out the corporation's financial constraints which the court had accepted.
This was followed by a contempt petition filed by one L Shanmugasundaram, who was working as a superintendent in the TNSTC, Madurai.
He retired on December 31, 2012. But, he was not extended his terminal benefits, which resulted in him filing a case against his employer at the high court bench seeking justice.
The single judge on November 29, 2013 passed orders directing the MD to give him terminal benefits at 6% interest within three months from the court' order copy, which he flouted.
When the matter came up before justice S Nagamuthu on Thursday, the petitioner's counsel A Rahul said the MD wilfully disobeyed the court order for about nine months even after many reminders and hence he should be punished under the CC Act.
Palraj, who appeared before the court as per court's earlier direction cited the transport corporation's financial crisis and hence it was not able to pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner.
He said the total amount that is due to be paid to the victims of motor vehicle accidents is roughly Rs 250 crore while 206 cases of execution proceedings are pending before various motor accidents claim tribunals and 180 buses out of 2,298 buses have been attached.
He further said the corporation paid Rs.9.05 lakh to the petitioner by means of cheque dated September 18.
To this, the judge said the MD had to file a petition before the court seeking extension of time to obey the court order that he had not done and consequently, even after service of contempt notice he had got no mind to file an explanation.
"It may be true that the contemnor is facing crisis. A retired employee would normally expect that his retirement benefits should be settled so that he settle his family members, such as marriage of children, education of children, reimbursement of loan etc. If such a big organisation like the transport corporation is unable to pay a paltry sum, which legally to be paid to a former employee, then the type of explanation now offered to the court is only a mute explanation which cannot be accepted," the judge said.
In view of all the above, the contemnor (MD) was found guilty under Section 12 of the Act. However, as far as imposing punishment was concerned, he is discharged, the judge said.
The judge gave him this relief after he considered his unconditional apology and made payment towards terminal benefits of the petitioner by way of cheque.