The Madras High Court has directed the Block Development Officer at Vellore to furnish required details regarding employment of one V.Kanthan to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore Region.
Justice S.Vaidyanathan was passing interim orders passed on a contempt petition filed by Kanthan.
The court had earlier in 2014 directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Vellore Region to pay Rs.3,000 per month. As it was not paid by the Corporation, Kanthan filed the contempt petition.
When the plea came up recently, counsel for the corporation in its counter contended that the petitioner was getting wages from the National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme and he is also working on daily wages basis and his last drawn wages was computed to Rs.2,548 and hence he was not entitled for the similar amount.
It was also averred further in the counter that the petitioner's wife is a ward councillor and he undertakes work in the concerned Panchayat.
Counsel for petitioner submitted that it was duty of the Corporation to establish as to whether he is gainfully employed or not and they cannot shift the burden on him.
It was submitted by counsel for the corporation that when corporation officials approached the BDO to collect documents to establish the fact that the councillor's husband i.E., Kanthan was in employment, they refused to part with that.
In his order, the judge observed "If the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the transport corporation are found true, it would be a serious offence amounting to misleading the court."
"In order to ascertain the genuineness, the Block Development Officer is directed to furnish the required details of regarding the employment of the said V.Kanthan to the officials of the respondent Corporation. However, on receipt of such details, the counsel for the corporation is hereby directed to file the detailed report."
The judge said "since as on date the gainful employment of V.Kanthan has not been proved, corporation is hereby directed to pay the arrears of wages under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as per the earlier order of this court on or before June 8 and report the same to this court in the next hearing.However, it is also made clear that such payment being made would be subject to the outcome of contempt petition."
The judge also made it clear that if the petitioner has mislead the court, it would be viewed very seriously and appropriate action will be taken.
