JUDGMENT A.K. Mathur, C. J.: All these four appeals arise against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 10th June, 1998 in C.R. No. 2535 (W) of 1996 (Contempt Rule), therefore they are disposed of by common order. The contempt petition was filed by the Howrah Parcel (Eastern Railway) Labour Contractor Mazdur Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as the Union) against the officers of the Eastern Railway. Brief facts which are necessary for disposal of these appeals are that a writ petition (Civil Order No. 20784 (w) of 1995) was filed by the said Union before this Court praying for the following reliefs: (a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents authorities to invite tender as per notice with the Rider that existing 265 employees should be continued by the intending or proposed contractor and to incorporate in the tender notice the specific condition that existing workers/labours should be continued and further forbearing the respondents from proceeding with the tender, being Annexure "B" herein, to the exclusion of the aforesaid Rider; (b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to transmit the entire records of the case before this Hon'ble Court and to certify the same so that after persuing the same conscionable justice may be administered by issuing necessary direction; (c) Rule Nisi in terms of prayers (a) & (b); (d) Grant an ad-interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with the tender, being Annexure "B" herein, without there being the specific condition that existing labours should be continued, till the disposal of the Rule; (e) To make the Rule absolute and to pass such other order or orders as to Your Lordships may seem fit and proper. The petitioner union is a registered trade union having 265 members who are porters/labourers appointed/employed for loading and unloading of goods and wagons of different trains at Howrh Station and in godowns/warehouses at Howrah. The petitioner union claimed absorption of all such 265 workers who were working under the contractors and further claimed arrears of wages. 2. The matter came up before the learned single Judge and Justice Chakravarty (as he then was) disposed of the writ petition on the statement made by the Counsel for the Railway Administration in the following terms: "Mr. The petitioner union claimed absorption of all such 265 workers who were working under the contractors and further claimed arrears of wages. 2. The matter came up before the learned single Judge and Justice Chakravarty (as he then was) disposed of the writ petition on the statement made by the Counsel for the Railway Administration in the following terms: "Mr. Arun Prakash Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the respondents Railway Authorities, submitted that the persistent Policy of the Railway Authorities being to absorb the existing workers working under the contractors as far as practicable, existing workers working under the contractors shall be absorbed by the Railways as far as practicable and necessary mandates will be issued upon the contractors to employ the existing workers. It was further submitted on behalf of the Railway Authorities that the said Authorities shall pay all arrear dues of the existing workers and the aforesaid undertakings shall be made effective within two months from this date. In view of the above submissions, Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not press the writ application and prayed for disposal of the application accordingly. The writ application is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. This is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. Let a plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner." 3. It may be relevant to mention here that on 1.1.1995 a parcel handling contract was awarded to one Duli Chand Surana for 3 years from 1.1.1995. On 17.1.1995, said Duli Chand Surana submitted names of 80 labourers along with Identity Cards, engaged by him for counter signature by the Railway and the same was returned after counter signature on the same date. However, said Sri Surana failed to make payment of the wages to the labourers since March 1995. Therefore, the contract of said Sri Surana was terminated by the Railways on 8.9.1995. However, said Sri Surana failed to make payment of the wages to the labourers since March 1995. Therefore, the contract of said Sri Surana was terminated by the Railways on 8.9.1995. Then Sri Surana informed the Railways by a letter dated 3.7.1995 that he had a licence for engaging 80 labourers issued by the Regional Labour Commissioner, but the labourers were asking for payment of wages to 184 labourers and that the labourers had filed a claim application under the Minimum Wages Act before the Regional Labour Commissioner for payment of wages to 184 workers and until the same is disposed of, he is unable to make payment. 4. Thereafter, the writ petition was filed and it was prayed by the petitioner union that respondents authorities be directed to invite fresh tender with a stipulation that existing 265 employees should be continued by the intending or proposed contractor. 5. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 23.11.1995 on the undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the Railway Authorities as aforesaid. 6. Thereafter, it is alleged, notice was issued by the Railway Administration to all existing 80 workers/labourers of the contractor Sri Duli Chand Surana asking them to come and collect their dues. Out of 80, only one labourer/employee turned up, rest refused to accept the notice. It is alleged that the date for payment was fixed as on 16.1.1996 and cash amounting to Rs.5,73,608.69 was withdrawn from the Divisional Cashier's office and kept ready for disbursement. But, as aforesaid, none of the labourers except one turned up. The amount was kept for 3 days and since the labourers did not turn up to receive the amount, the said amount was deposited back in the Divisional Cashier's office. It was also directed by the Railway Administration, in pursuance of the direction given by this Court in the said order, that new contractor shall absorb all or the majority of the labourers of the previous contractor. 7. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed by the writ petitioner union for non-compliance of the order passed by Justice Chakravarty (as he then was) and contempt notice was issued. 7. Thereafter, a contempt petition was filed by the writ petitioner union for non-compliance of the order passed by Justice Chakravarty (as he then was) and contempt notice was issued. Meanwhile, Railway Administration also filed an application for clarification of the order dated 23.11.1995 but same was dismissed by order dated 23.4.1996 by holding that there is no scope for clarification of the order dated 23.11.1995 as the same is clear and understandable. 8. Meanwhile, Raliway Administration also preferred an appeal before the Division Bench against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 23.11.1995 and the order dated 23.4.1996 rejecting the application for clarification of the order dated 23.11.1995. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said appeal by order dated 4.11.1996 which reads as under: "With the consent of the parties, we proceed to decide the appeal itself finally dispensing with filing of paper books and other formalities required to be observed under the Rules of this Court and treating the appeal as on day's list for hearing. This appeal is against the order dated 23rd November, 1995 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Judge recorded certain undertakings given by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-authorities in the writ petition and accordingly disposed of the writ petition which was not pressed by the writ petitioners in view of such undertaking given by the learned Counsel appearing for the Railway authorities. Later on, the respondent-Raliway i.e. the appellants herein made an application for clarification of the order passed by the trial Court. The said application was disposed of by the learned trial Judge by an order dated 23rd April, 1996 whereby it was recorded that there was no scope for clarification of the order as the same is clear and understandable. The present appeal has been preferred by the respondents Railway authorities in the writ petition contending that the order under appeal, the clarification of which was sought for before the trial court, contains ambiguity inasmuch as the statements of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Railway authorities in the writ petition as recorded in the order under appeal is ambiguous. According to us, this ambiguity could only be corrected in the event the said learned Counsel had approached the learned trial Judge and clarified the position. But that was not done. According to us, this ambiguity could only be corrected in the event the said learned Counsel had approached the learned trial Judge and clarified the position. But that was not done. In the appeal court, we cannot alter either the said statement or undertaking. In that view of the matter, there is no scope for interfering with the order passed by the learned trial Judge. However, at the time of hearing of the instant appeal, it appeared to us that the writ petitioners-respondents and the appellant before us understood the order under appeal to the effect that the persons engaged as contract labourers by the contractor engaged by the appellant/Railway shall be paid their remuneration and in the event they are not paid, the appellant-Railway as the principal employer, shall pay that their wages and that the persons engaged by the contractor's contract labourers shall also be engaged by the subsequent contractor. The appeal is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Let plain copies of the order, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on their usual undertaking." 9. A close reading of the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench shows that the Court has observed that it cannot alter either the statement or the undertaking made before the learned single Judge and there is no scope for interfering with the order passed by the trial Court either on 23.11.1995 or on 23.4.1996 rejecting the application for clarification of the order dated 23.11.1995. Notwithstanding that, Their Lordships of the Division Bench commented as to how the aforesaid order dated 23.11.1995 has been understood by the parties. Their Lordships have very categorically observed in the last paragraph of the order that both the parties understood the order under appeal to the effect that the persons engaged as contract labours by the contractor for the Railway Administration shall be paid their remuneration and in the event they are not paid, by the contractor, the Railway Administration as the principal employer shall pay their wages and that the contractor's contract labours shall also be engaged by the subsequent contractor. Therefore, the Division Bench clarified the order notwithstanding the observation made by it that it declines to interfere with the impugned order. Therefore, the Division Bench clarified the order notwithstanding the observation made by it that it declines to interfere with the impugned order. In view of this clarification, whatever is the effect of the order passed on 23.11.1995, stood neutralised by the Appellate Court. However, the matter did not rest here, a contempt petition was filed and notices were issued. The contempt petition was disposed of by Samaresh Banerjea, J. by order dated 10th June, 1998. Learned Judge took the view that the contemners have committed contempt of the order passed by-this Court by wilfully and deliberately committing breach of the undertaking given by them before the Court in the writ petition on 23.11.1995, he held them guilty, declined to accept the unconditional apology and punished all the contemners appellants with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each to be paid within 3 weeks and sentenced each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days. Further, learned Judge suspended the sentence for a period of seven months from the date of the order and directed that the respondents report the matter within a period of six months from the date of compliance of the undertaking to the Court and in default the sentence of imprisonment shall immediately take place. Learned Judge awarded cost of 20 G.M. s to be paid by each of the contemners. The operative portion of the order reads as under: "I, therefore, hold that each of the contemners has committed contempt of court by violating wilfully and deliberately the undertaking given by him before the Court on the basis of which the writ petition was disposed of by the aforesaid order dated November 23, 1995. It is true that each of the contemners in his affidavit has offered unconditional apology. But it does not appear to this court that any of the contemners is really apologetic. On the contrary it appears to this court after committing such contempt by violating such undertaking with impunity, apology is now sought to be offered only to avoid consequences of commission of contempt." 10. Each of the contemners is educated, high official of the Railways and yet has resorted to such conduct, probably with the idea that after commission of contempt one can easily avoid the consequences by merely offering an apology. Under such circumstances, in my view, each of the contemners deserves deterrent punishment. 11. Each of the contemners is educated, high official of the Railways and yet has resorted to such conduct, probably with the idea that after commission of contempt one can easily avoid the consequences by merely offering an apology. Under such circumstances, in my view, each of the contemners deserves deterrent punishment. 11. I, therefore, sentence each of the contemners to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each to be paid within 3 weeks to the Registrar, Appellate Side, High Court. I further sentence each of them to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days. 12. Each of the contemners is directed to implement the undertaking given before the Court within a period of six months from date. The sentence of imprisonment, however, shall remain suspended for a period of seven months from date. Immediately alter compliance of such undertaking within the aforesaid period of six months each of the contemners will submit a report of compliance. In default of the same the sentence for imprisonment shall immediately take effect. 13. Each of the contemners shall also pay cost of this application assessed at 20 G. Ms. "The learned Advocate appearing for the contemners prays for stay of operation of this order. In view of the suspension of the sentence for imprisonment and in view of the fact that three weeks' time has been granted for payment of fine, no stay is called for. It is to be recorded that today all the contemners are personally present excepting the contemner No.4 who reportedly is now in Madras and is seriously ill. The learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioner, however, is directed to communicate to him the sentence passed against the said contemner forthwith. If certified copy of this judgment and order is applied for that will be made available to the applicant as expeditiously as possible." 14. Aggrieved against this order by the learned Single Judge, present four appeals have been filed by the respondent-contemner. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the order passed by learned single Judge on 23.11.1995 in the writ petition was clarified by the Division Bench in appeal. Aggrieved against this order by the learned Single Judge, present four appeals have been filed by the respondent-contemner. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellants had submitted that the order passed by learned single Judge on 23.11.1995 in the writ petition was clarified by the Division Bench in appeal. The Division Bench has already interpreted the order to mean that the Railway Administration being the principal employer is under an obligation to pay the labourers of the contractor because the contractor has failed to make the payment and it was clarified that a notice should also be issued in fresh tenders for new contractor that the new contractor shall be under an obligation to absorb all the employees/labourers of the previous contractor. After the interpretation of the order of the learned single Judge by the Division Bench, the Railway Administration was under obligation to make payment to the labourers of the earlier contractor Sri Duli Chand Surana and to incorporate a condition in fresh tender notice to employ contract labour of earlier contractor, both were complied with, therefore there was no question of any contempt being committed. It was also pointed out that no such undertaking as such by the Railways to absorb all these employees can be given effect as it is beyond the prayer in the writ petition and incapable of being complied with in view of statutory Rules of recruitment. It was pointed out that the Railway Administration was under an obligation to pay 80 labourers/workers whom the Administration have certified as the workers of the contractor and not all the 265 members of the writ petitioner Union. It was submitted that the Railway Administration already issued a notice and kept the cash amount ready to pay those 80 workers and except one none turned up to get the amount. It was also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there was no provisions for absorption of such labourers in the Railways against the Rules nor posts are available in Railway Administration for absorption of those persons. The undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration was not authorised to give such undertaking before the Court against the statutory Rules of recruitment. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that any undertaking in infraction of the Rules cannot bind principal. 16. The undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the Railway Administration was not authorised to give such undertaking before the Court against the statutory Rules of recruitment. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that any undertaking in infraction of the Rules cannot bind principal. 16. Learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that if two interpretations are possible, then the Court should lean in favour of an interpretation which advances the cause of justice. In this connection, learned Counsel drew our attention to the decisions in S.K. Saha & Anr. vs. Gokul Chandra Dhara, 1987(1) CHN 446 , State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221 , Smt. Pushpaben vs. Narandas, AIR 1979 SC 1536 , Indian Airports Employees' Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 537 , Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bhasin & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1528 and Union of India vs. Mario Cabrale SA, AIR 1982 SC 691 . Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in case this Court is not inclined to accept these appeals of the appellants, then it would be in the fitness of things to remand the case back to the learned single Judge so that all the issues can be thrashed out in regular hearing of the writ petition. 17. Mr. Bose learned Counsel for the appellant appearing in F M A T No. 2100 of 1998 also submitted that the relief granted by the learned single Judge was beyond the scope of the writ petition and invited out attention to the prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the writ petition as quoted hereinabove. Learned Counsel also invited our attention to a decision of this Court reported in M. Banerjee vs. H. A. Halim, Speaker, 1997 (II) CHN 562 . 18. Mr. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing in F M A T No. 2098 of 1998 submitted that no contempt petition lies against such order. It was submitted that this was an agreed order between the parties and on such agreed order passed at the instance of the parties, no contempt petition is maintainable. The remedy if any is available for a fresh cause of action and not a contempt petition. In this connection, learned Counsel invited our attention to B.K. Rao vs. Prithwis Kar, 1989 (2) CHN 58 and 1997 (2) CHN 103 Janak Deo Tewari vs. Sri Ashim Burman, Municipal Commissioner. 19. As against these, Mr. The remedy if any is available for a fresh cause of action and not a contempt petition. In this connection, learned Counsel invited our attention to B.K. Rao vs. Prithwis Kar, 1989 (2) CHN 58 and 1997 (2) CHN 103 Janak Deo Tewari vs. Sri Ashim Burman, Municipal Commissioner. 19. As against these, Mr. Ghoshal, learned Counsel for the respondent (writ petitioner), supported the judgment of the learned single Judge and strenuously urged before us that in fact that figure of 265 workers/labourers was not contested the number of labourers being 265 and the learned single Judge has rightly directed in the contempt order to absorb them by the Railway administration in view of the undertaking given before the learned single Judge. Learned Counsel also submitted that the interpretation put by the appellants on the order of the learned Division Bench is not warranted and it is submitted that the Appellate order was kept intact. Therefore, learned Counsel submitted that once the appellate order has declined to interfere with the appeal and has made it very clear that it cannot interfere with the undertaking given by the Railway Administration, nothing was changed by the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court affirmed the order of the learned single Judge passed in the writ petition and therefore the Railway Administration was under an obligation to give effect to the undertaking and pay the 265 parcel porters of the contractor and they were to be absorbed by the Railway Administration. Learned Counsel for the respondent invited our attention to a decision reported in, Noorali Babul Thanewala vs. Sh. K.M.M. Shetty & Ors., AIR 1990 SC 464 . 20. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. We have bestowed our best of consideration to the order passed by the Division Bench referred to above and after scrutinizing the same, it appears that the Division Bench has clarified the order of the learned single Judge in no uncertain terms to mean that what was intended by the undertaking and how the order was understood by both the parties. If we go through the frame of the writ petition and the prayer thereof as reproduced above, the main relief as was claimed by the writ petitioner union was that a Mandamus be issued to the respondent authority that when any fresh tenders are invited, there should be rider that existing 265 labourers and/or employees should be continued by the proposed contractor and that specific condition be incorporated in the tender notice. No prayer whatsoever was made for payment of these workers. The idea appears to be that the petitioner union, who had 265 workers, wanted that all the workers who are alleged to be working with Sri Duli Chand Surana, the old contractor, should be re-employed by the new contractor. It was nowhere pleaded whether those 80 employees/labourers should be paid or not. The frame of the writ petition was primarily for the condition to be incorporated in the new tender notice that all the workers earlier engaged by the old contractor may be re-employed by the new contractor for service. There was no occasion for giving undertaking on behalf of Railway a administration for absorption of the workers by the Administration, but, it appears the learned Counsel for the Raliway administration perhaps was under a total misapprehension of the case and controversy involved in the matter and gave an undertaking which as not authorised by the Railway administration and it was totally against the statutory Rules. It is no gainsaying that In the Railway administration recruitment to the service is governed by the Service Rules and no undertaking can be given by any person against these statutory Rules to absorb all the workers. Therefore, in this background when the matter was interpreted by the Division Bench, Division Bench took the view that what was intended was that the workers should be paid and a condition to be incorporated when new tenders are- invited that the labourers of the old contractor be absorbed by the new contractor. After the Division Bench clarified the matter and interpreted the order of the learned single Judge, there was nothing left for the Railway administration except to incorporate the condition in the tender notice and to pay the labourers/workers their wages. For that purpose, the money was drawn, notice was issued. After the Division Bench clarified the matter and interpreted the order of the learned single Judge, there was nothing left for the Railway administration except to incorporate the condition in the tender notice and to pay the labourers/workers their wages. For that purpose, the money was drawn, notice was issued. In that view of the matter, we are of the firmly opinion that it cannot be said that the officers of the Railway Administration acted in violation of the undertaking or order passed this Court so as to be punished for violating the order of this Court. Bona fides are not lacking on the part of the Railway Administration and its officers. They moved an application for clarification of the order of the learned single Judge which was rejected and the order was not clarified. Therefore, there was no option but to approach the Division Bench against the order dated 23.11.1995 and also against the order dated 23.4.1996 which did clarify the said order dated 23.11.1995. In view of the order of the Division Bench, the action taken by the Railway Administration in issuing the notice for payment of wages due to those 80 workers/labourers of Sri Duli Chand Surana, the earlier contractor and a tender notice inviting labour contractor for conditional employment of the workers/labourers of the previous contractor this was sufficient compliance of the order of the Division Bench. Learned Counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent has submitted that the figure of 265 was not contested and the Division Bench did not absolve the respondents authority from absorbing the old workers/labourers, the submission is not well founded. When 265 workmen were not employed by earlier contractor how can wages be claimed for such workers. This fact can be verified from identity passes issued by Railway administration to parcel porters. Whatever confusion has been created by unauthorised undertaking given by Railway Counsel has been clarified by the Division Bench. A recent decision of the Apex Court in Indian Airports Employees' Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 537 (supra). This fact can be verified from identity passes issued by Railway administration to parcel porters. Whatever confusion has been created by unauthorised undertaking given by Railway Counsel has been clarified by the Division Bench. A recent decision of the Apex Court in Indian Airports Employees' Union vs. Ranjan Chatterjee & Anr., (1992) 2 SCC 537 (supra). It was observed therein by Their Lordships that where there was genuine difference of opinion between rival parties as to whether workmen whom the union was representing, were covered by the relief granted by Court and resolution of such difference involved interpretation of Court's order, notification, and other relevant documents, then in that case, non-implementation of Court's order did not amount to contempt of Court's order, and it was held that such disputed question as to be decided in appropriate proceedings. The present case is also somewhat of similar nature, being non-implementation of Court's order with regard to such workers/labourers. The dispute therein was whether the workmen whom the union therein was representing were covered by the relief granted by the Court or not. Therefore, that question arose and contempt petition was filed. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that disobedience of Court's order amounts to a Civil contempt, but such disobedience must be wilful and the proof of mere disobedience is not sufficient. It was observed that where there is no deliberate flouting of Court's orders but a mere misinterpretation of executive instructions, that would not be a case of civil contempt. 21. In the present case, as we have pointed out, the order of the learned Single Judge was clarified by the Division Bench and in that light, the Railway administration have complied with the order, it is far from correct to say that the Authorities wilfully or deliberately flouted or disobeyed the order of the Court. A reading of the Division Bench judgment which has been interpreted by the Railway Administration does not act bona fide. Our attention was also invited to Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bahsin & Anr. (supra), AIR 1979 SC 1528 , this was a case of disobedience of compromise/consent decree. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the breach thereof does not amount to contempt. Our attention was also invited to Babu Ram Gupta vs. Sudhir Bahsin & Anr. (supra), AIR 1979 SC 1528 , this was a case of disobedience of compromise/consent decree. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the breach thereof does not amount to contempt. Their Lordships further held that while exercising the power under Contempt of Courts' Act for imposing punishment, such power should not be exercised lightly, but, only to uphold the majesty of law and dignity of courts. Likewise in case of Union of India vs. Mario Kabrale SA (supra), AIR 1982 SC 691 , an assurance was given by the learned Counsel for the Government and on that basis the writ petition was disposed of. Their Lordships of the Apex Court observed that there was no undertaking for grant of accreditation and the failure of the Government to grant accreditation would not amount to contempt of Court. Our attention was also invited to, The State of Bihar vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, (supra) AIR 1961 SC 221 , wherein the Apex Court held that whenever order is capable of two interpretation then in that case such extreme step of punishing the persons to contempt should not be resorted. "A party proceeded against under Order 39 Rule 2 (3) Civil P.C. for disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have wilfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions fare satisfied viz. - (1) that the order of ambiguous and was reasonably capable of more than one interpretation (2) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood an order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is primarily one of fact, and where the materials before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions for the only reason, that ingenuity of Counsel can discover equivocation in the order which is the subject of enforcement." 22. In the present case, as we have already mentioned above after the order was passed by the learned single Judge on the so-called undertaking given by the Counsel for the Railway Administration, that very order came to be interpreted by the Division Bench. In the present case, as we have already mentioned above after the order was passed by the learned single Judge on the so-called undertaking given by the Counsel for the Railway Administration, that very order came to be interpreted by the Division Bench. Though, in the first part of the order of the Division Bench, the Division Bench declined to interfere with in the appeal, but notwithstanding that, in the second part of the order, Division Bench clarified what was intended by the order of the single Judge and what is the import thereof. If the Division Bench has clarified the order and the same has been faithfully complied with by the Railway administration, it does not appear to be a case of wilful disobedience by the Railway administration. After going through the order of the Division Bench as a whole, we are of the opinion that in fact, notwithstanding the fact that the Division Bench in the first part declined to interfere with the order of learned single Judge, dated 23.11.1995. Division Bench has put its own interpretation on the order of the learned Single Judge and that has been complied with by the Railway Administration. Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that the Railway Administration has at any point of time committed any contempt of this Court's order. In the case of Mahananda Banerjee vs. Hon'ble Hasim Abdul Halim, Speaker, 1997 (II) CHN 562 , (supra). Their Lordships held that - if in compliance of an order of High Court the appropriate authority passes an order, then, there is no wilful violation of the Court's order even if the order of the authority is bad. That will only furnish a fresh cause of action for moving that High Court again and does not amount to contempt of Court's order. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in Janak Das Tewari & Ors. That will only furnish a fresh cause of action for moving that High Court again and does not amount to contempt of Court's order. Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in Janak Das Tewari & Ors. vs. Sri Ashim Burman, Municipal Commissioner, 1997 (II) CHN 103 wherein it was observed by Their Lordships of this Court that - once an order is passed by a party to the proceeding on the basis of the direction issued by Court, there arises a fresh cause of action to seek redress in an appropriate forum and such action does not constitute an offence under section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 even if such action is not in conformity with the directions of the Court. Our attention was also invited to a decision reported in B.K. Rao vs. Prithwis Kar, 1989 (II) CHN 58 , wherein it was held that in case so called undertaking or assurance is incapable of being implemented, because of lack of authority or jurisdiction in the respondents, then appellant shall not be compelled to carry out such direction given by the Court. 23. Mr. Ghoshal, learned Counsel for the respondent in the appeals, also drew our attention to the case of AIR 1990 SC 464 Noorali Babul Thanewala vs. Sh. K.M.M. Shetty and Ors., (supra). Therein, an undertaking was given by a tenant for delivery of vacant possession of the suit premises and that undertaking was not honoured by the tenant. Their Lordships held that this breach of undertaking given to the Court tantamounts to breach of injunction and that amounts to contempt, but, in the instant case, as we have already explained above what was the worth of the undertaking as was interpreted by the Division Bench and what was understood between the parties. Therefore, whatever the effect of the so-called undertaking given by the learned Counsel for the Railway administration before the learned single Judge was, stood modified by the Division Bench. Division Bench order was faithfully complied with by the Railway administration and there was no wilful violation or disobedience of that order on the part of the Railway authority. Railway's Administration was ready and willing to pay wages to 80 workers/labourers of Sri Duli Chand Surana, ex-contractor, but the labourers did not turn up to accept the same, except only one. Railway's Administration was ready and willing to pay wages to 80 workers/labourers of Sri Duli Chand Surana, ex-contractor, but the labourers did not turn up to accept the same, except only one. That itself shows the bona fides of the Railways, it also further shows that they did not lack in their bona fides because sufficient money for disbursement of wages to 80 workers was drawn and ready cash was kept for disbursement. Labourers did not turn up to take the money, except one. Therefore, it is an ample evidence on the part of the Railway Authorities' bona fides. 24. In fact the Railway Administration was on the horns of a dilemma how to reconcile single Judge's decision and the decision of the Division Bench. They thought it safe to follow the decision of Division Bench and rightly so. Even if for the time being it is accepted that there was an ambiguity in the order of the Division Bench, but in view of the categorical finding and interpretation put by the Division Bench on the order of the learned single Judge, the Railway Authority has acted in a bona fide manner and we do not see any lack of bona fides on their part so as to punish them for contempt of Court's order. 25. It is strange to find how could a Counsel for the Railway Administration give an undertaking to the Court that all the 265 workers/labourers of the writ petitioner-union will be absorbed in face of a statutory recruitment Rules in the Railway administration. An undertaking which runs counter to the statutory provision of law cannot be abided by the Authorities so as to commit violation of the Rules. We have not been able to understand the so called undertaking given by the learned Counsel against the statutory Rules and the Railway Administration is not bound to give go-bye to these Rules in order to abide by an unauthorised undertaking given by the Counsel. No party can be punished for an unauthorised undertaking given against the law for not complying with such undertaking as it will expose the party to further litigation. The Court's orders are not meant to violate laws. 26. There is no provision for this kind of recruitment to an employee of the contractor by the Railways. No party can be punished for an unauthorised undertaking given against the law for not complying with such undertaking as it will expose the party to further litigation. The Court's orders are not meant to violate laws. 26. There is no provision for this kind of recruitment to an employee of the contractor by the Railways. In order to absorb the employees, the administration needs to have due sanction of the post and even if the sanctioned posts are available, then too also, the Railway administration has to abide by all the Rules in the Railways. Therefore, the so-called undertaking given by the Counsel for the Railway administration on the face of it appears to be totally unauthorised and uncalled for. Railway Administration cannot be punished for such unauthorised and uncalled for undertaking given by a Counsel against the Rules. 27. Hence, we are satisfied that there is no wilful disobedience committed by any of the appellants so as to be punished for contempt of Court's order. The order passed by the learned single Judge dated 10th June, 1998 is set aside. 28. However, it will be open to the writ petitioners-respondents to resort to remedy under section 21 (4) of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 in case-the payment is not made by the contractor. 29. All the appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. 30. The xerox certified copies, of the judgment delivered today (22.2.2000), if applied for, may be given to the parties on priority basis. Satyabrata Sinha, J.: I agree. All the appeals allowed.