JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. - This contempt petition has been filed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent and punishing them in accordance with law for the willful disobedience of the undertaking dated 13.8.2001 given in Civil Writ Petition No. 12097 of 1999 and for willful disobedience of the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 10776 of 1997 decided on 22.10.1997 as modified vide order dated 21.11.1997 etc. and for directing the respondents to comply with the directions/orders/writs and undertakings in letter and spirit. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 23.7.1966 by the Land Development and Seeds Corporation Ltd. which was renamed as Land Development and Reclamation Corporation. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 14.2.1969, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Labour Court, Ludhiana. Vide award dated 2.2.1978 the learned Labour Court was pleased to order reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and back wages to the tune of 30% per month w.e.f. 18.2.1969 till the date of actual reinstatement. 3. The award passed by the learned Labour Court was challenged by the Corporation by filing civil writ petition No. 1854 of 1980 in which stay against the award was granted. However, the said writ petition was dismissed in default on 30.10.1992. 4. The petitioner had also challenged the impugned part of the award vide which he was only granted back wages @ 30% per month instead of full back wages by filing civil writ petition No. 3308 of 1980. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 4.10.1996. The operative part of the judgment reads asunder :- "The management brought no proof on the records of the case that the petitioner during the period of his enforced idleness, was gainfully employed and therefore, there was nothing at all to disbelieve the statement of the workman. Following the dictum of law laid down by Full Bench in Hari Palaces case (supra), I modify the award Annexure P-2 and hold the workman entitled to full back wages from the date he made a demand upto the date of reinstatement. No orders as to costs." 5. The case of the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court was not complied with. No orders as to costs." 5. The case of the petitioner is that the order passed by this Court was not complied with. He had to file C.W.P. No. 10776 of 1997 seeking a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction directing the Corporation to allow the petitioner to join his duty and to pay full back wages/arrears of salary with interest till payment. 6. The C.W.P. No. 10776 of 1997 filed by the petitioner was allowed on October 22, 1997. The operative part of the order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 10776 of 1997 reads as under :- "Having heard Counsel for the parties and after perusing the record, we direct the respondent-Corporation (management) to implement the modified award of the Labour Court in its entirety on or before November 17, 1997. This will, however, be subject to any order that may be passed by the Letters Patent Bench in the appeal preferred by the management. Management is further directed to pay interest @ 15 per cent per annum on the amount of back wages and other allowances payable to the workman from the date of the award till the date of payment. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms." 7. The Corporation in the said writ petition had filed C.M. No. 25888 of 1997 seeking more time to discharge the above liabilities. On 22.11.1997, this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- "By our order dated October 22, 1997 we allowed CWP No. 10776 of 1997 and directed the applicant-corporation to implement the modified award of the Labour Court in its entirety on or before November 17, 1997. The Management was further directed to pay interest to the workman at the rate of 15% per annum on the amount of back wages and other allowances payable to him from the date of the award till the date of payment. The prayer now made in this application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure is for extending the time to implement the award. After hearing counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned in the application, we direct the applicant Management to implement the award and carry out our order dated October 22, 1997 on or before January 15, 1998. After hearing counsel for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned in the application, we direct the applicant Management to implement the award and carry out our order dated October 22, 1997 on or before January 15, 1998. It is made clear that no further time shall be allowed to the management. The application stands disposed of as above." 8. In spite of the directions having been issued no payment was made to the petitioner nor he was allowed to join duty. Resultantly, the petitioner filed COCP No. 190 of 1998. In the said contempt petition, this Court was pleased to pass the following order on 31.8.1998 :- "By an award dated 2.2.1978 the reference made to the Labour Court was answered in favour of the petitioner workman and against the Management. The Management was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity to service and pay 30% back wages to him. Feeling aggrieved by this award both the Management and the workman filed two writ petitions in this Court. Civil Writ Petition 1854 of 1980 filed by the Management was dismissed on 30.10.1992 for non-prosecution. On the other hand Civil Writ Petition 3308 of 1980 filed by the workman was allowed on 4.10.1996 and the management has been directed to pay full back wages to the workman. This modified award was not being implemented and therefore the workman filed Civil Writ Petition 10776 of 1997 in this Court which came up for hearing before a Division Bench on 22.10.1997. The writ petition was allowed and Managing Director was directed to implement the modified award of the Labour Court in its entirety on or before 17.11.1997. It was brought to the notice of the Bench that the Management had filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the Single Judge passed in Civil Writ Petition 3308 of 1980. In view of this fact, it was ordered that the direction given was subject to any order that may be passed by the Letters Patent Bench. It is common case of the parties that the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 24.10.1997. In this view of the matter, the Management has no choice but to implement the direction given by this court on 22.10.1997. It is common case of the parties that the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on 24.10.1997. In this view of the matter, the Management has no choice but to implement the direction given by this court on 22.10.1997. However, by an order passed on 21.11.1997 the period for implementing the direction was extended and the Management was directed to implement the modified award by 15.1.1998. The grievance now made in this contempt petition is that the court directions have not been carried out in as much as the modified award is not being implemented. In response to the notice issued by this court the respondent has filed a short reply stating therein chat the Management has filed an application for restoration of Civil Writ Petition 1854 of 1980 in which notice has been issued to the workman (petitioner herein). It is admitted that the operation of the modified award has not been stayed. I have heard counsel for the parties and I am satisfied that the respondent has not carried out the directions issued in Civil Writ Petition 10776 of 1997. The poor workman is being made to run from pillar to post. The award was made in the year 1978 and it is unfortunate that the Management has till date successfully involved the petitioner-workman in one litigation or the other without implementing the award and the directions issued by this Court. Since the Management has not carried out the Court directions the respondent is guilty of contempt of court but instead of proceeding against him at this stage, I allow him one months time to comply with the court directions as issued in Civil Writ Petition 10776 of 1997. He is further directed to reinstate the workman during this period and pay him all the arrears that have become due to him. To come up on 7.10.1998 for further proceedings. 31.8.1998 Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, Judge." Thereafter on 8.12.1998, the following order was passed :- "The respondent is present in Court. He states that the Court order dated 22.10.1997 shall be implemented on or before December 15, 1998 since sanction of the State Government for the creation of a new post has been received. He has further stated that the workman will be reinstated by the aforesaid date and that his back wages as awarded by this court along with interest shall be paid on or before December 31, 1998. He has further stated that the workman will be reinstated by the aforesaid date and that his back wages as awarded by this court along with interest shall be paid on or before December 31, 1998. In view of the statement made by the respondent, I refrain from taking any action against him for not implementing the court orders earlier. Adjourned to 11.1.1999. The respondent is directed to be present on that date as well. 8.12.1998. Sd/- N.K. Sodhi, Judge." The time granted was further extended on an application moved by the Managing Director of the Corporation on 16.12.1998. The order passed on 16.12.1998 reads as under :- "The prayer made in the application is allowed and the respondent is granted time to implement the undertaking by December 23,1998. It is however made clear that in case the Board of Directors does not meet on 22.12.1998 for any reason, the respondent is directed to give appointment to the petitioner- workman in implementation of the court direction. The application stands disposed of as above. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges". 9. Thereafter the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 22.12.1998 giving him retrospective appointment w.e.f. 14.2.1969 and was allowed to join duty on 7.1.1999. The petitioner was also paid a sum of Rs. 2,02,575/- (Rupees two lac two thousand five hundred and seventy five only). The application moved by the Corporation for restoration of Civil Writ Petition No. 1854 of 1980 was dismissed and thereafter the review application against the order granting full back wages was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed C.W.P. No. 12097 of 1999 seeking direction to the respondents for payment of his arrears of salary/back wages with interest in terms of the orders passed by this Court. The superannuation benefits were also claimed. In the said writ petition Mr. M.S. Dhaliwal, Managing Director of the Corporation appeared in the Court on 5.4.2001 when the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- We have directed Mr. M.S. Dhaliwal, M.D. of the respondent Corporation to personally bring the accounts as to what would be the amount of back wages on reinstated rank of the petitioner from the date of termination till his superannuation i.e. 31.3.1999 and what would be the amount of gratuity. Mr. M.S. Dhaliwal, M.D. of the respondent Corporation to personally bring the accounts as to what would be the amount of back wages on reinstated rank of the petitioner from the date of termination till his superannuation i.e. 31.3.1999 and what would be the amount of gratuity. Mr. Dhaliwal, who is present in person has filed the details, according to which the amount of arrears of back wages would be around Rs. 10,40,000/- approximately and the gratuity amount would be Rs. 1,90,000/-. 30% of the back wages comes to Rs. 3,11,000/- (approximately). This 30% figure is because initially there was an award by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner for reinstatement in service with 30% back wages against which a writ petition of the petitioner was allowed to award full back wages. The petitioner has been paid till date approximately Rs. 2,02,000/-. Even if at the moment 30% back wages are calculated as also the gratuity amount this would come to approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- after excluding Rs. 2,02,000/- already paid to the petitioner. Mr. Dhaliwal states that the corporation is not in a position to pay a single penny to the petitioner in as much as employees of the corporation have not received their salaries for more than 7 months because of paucity of funds. The corporation has been writing to the State Government to come to its rescue by providing fund. No funds have been received from the State Government. The correspondence, which has been entered into by the corporation with the State Government, has been handed over to Mr. Cheema. Mr. Cheema should get instructions in the matter to the following effect :- (i) is the State Government obliged to release some funds/subsidy to the corporation and (ii) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, how long would it take for the State Government to release the funds to the corporation and if so, how much. Adjourned to 26.4.2001. Copy of this order, attested by Special Secretary of this court, be given to Mr. Cheema for onward transmission to the concerned quarters." Again on 26.4.2001 this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- "On April 5, 2001 we had passed the following order :- We have directed Mr. Adjourned to 26.4.2001. Copy of this order, attested by Special Secretary of this court, be given to Mr. Cheema for onward transmission to the concerned quarters." Again on 26.4.2001 this Court was pleased to pass the following order :- "On April 5, 2001 we had passed the following order :- We have directed Mr. M.S. Dhaliwal, M.D. of the respondent Corporation to personally bring the accounts as to what would be the amount of back wages on reinstated rank of the petitioner from the date of termination till his superannuation i.e. 31.3.1999 and what would be the amount of gratuity. Mr. Dhaliwal, who is present in person has filed the details, according to which the amount of arrears of back wages would be around Rs. 10,40,000/- approximately and the gratuity amount would be Rs. 1,90,000/-. 30% of the back wages comes to Rs. 3,11,000/- (approximately). This 30% figure is because initially there was an award by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner for reinstatement in service with 30% back wages against which a writ petition of the petitioner was allowed to award full back wages. The petitioner has been paid till date approximately Rs. 2,02,000/-. Even if at the moment 30% back wages are calculated as also the gratuity amount this would come to approximately Rs. 3,00,000/- after excluding Rs. 2,02,000/- already paid to the petitioner. Mr. Dhaliwal states that the corporation is not in a position to pay a single penny to the petitioner in as much as employees of the corporation have not received their salaries for more than 7 months because of paucity of funds. The corporation has been writing to the State Government to come to its rescue by providing funds. No funds have been received from the State Government. The correspondence, which has been entered into by the corporation with the State Government, has been handed over to Mr. Cheema. Mr. Cheema should get instructions in the matter to the following effect :- (i) is the State Government obliged to release some funds/subsidy to the corporation and (ii) if the answer to (i) is in the affirmative, how long would it take for the State Government to release the funds to the corporation and if so, how much. Adjourned to 26.4.2001. Copy of this order, attested by Special Secretary of this court, be given to Mr. Adjourned to 26.4.2001. Copy of this order, attested by Special Secretary of this court, be given to Mr. Cheema for onward transmission to the concerned quarters." Mrs. S.K. Bhatia, learned Deputy Advocate General Punjab has placed on record a photo copy of a letter dated 24.4.2001 from the Under Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Punjab addressed to Shri G.S. Cheema, Senior Deputy Advocate General Punjab, Chandigarh, which reads as under :- Subject : CWP 12097-1999 Ref :- Your d.o. No. A-3-2001/146 dated 16.4.2001 addressed to Sh. C.L. Bains, IAS, Financial Commissioner, Development Punjab in so far as question No. 1 is concerned, it is submitted that no amount is outstanding against the Government on account subsidy on the supply of gypsum to be paid to the Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation for the previous years. As regards questions No. 2, it is also submitted that though there is no outstanding amount of Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation against the Government as stated above, however, the Government had sanctioned an amount of Rs. 55.00 lacs as Government of Indias share for manure & fertilizer scheme during the year 2000-2001 through the Director of Agriculture Punjab. But this amount could not be withdrawn during that financial year due to shortage of time for completing the requisite formalities. This amount, if necessary, will be get re-validated from Government of India by the Director of Agriculture, Punjab at his own level. If this amount is re-validated for utilization during the financial year and the proposal is received from the Director of Agriculture, Punjab, the matter will be taken up again with the State Finance, Department for its release. SD/- Under Secretary Agriculture (C). In view of what has been stated in the aforesaid letter & the fact that the Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corporation is not in a position to release the salaries to its employees, the Director of Agriculture Punjab is directed to get the sanctioned amount for the year 2000-2001 re-validated which is payable to the Corporation. Let this be done so that the Finance Department may release the amount to the Corporation by the next date of hearing. However, till further order from this Court, the Corporation will not utilize that amount which may be received from the Govt. Adjourned to 31.5.2001. Let this be done so that the Finance Department may release the amount to the Corporation by the next date of hearing. However, till further order from this Court, the Corporation will not utilize that amount which may be received from the Govt. Adjourned to 31.5.2001. Copy of this order, attested by the Special Secretary of this Court be given to Mrs. S.K. Bhatia, D.A.G., Punjab as well as to Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocate for onward transmission to the concerned quarters. April 26, 2001 Sd/- R.S. Mongia Judge Sd/- K.C. Gupta Judge" 10. That thereafter on 13.8.2001 the Managing Director of the Corporation offered unconditional apology for the remarks made in the written statement in CWP No. 12097 of 1999 and gave an undertaking on 13.8.2001 to the following effect :- "Mr. M.S. Dhaliwal, Managing Director is present in Court in obedience to the directions issued by this court. He has immediately offered unconditional apology in the contempt matter. He has, however, explained that the payment could not made to the petitioner due to circumstances beyond the control of the Corporation. No money has been released by the State Government. The Corporation has also not been able to liquidate its assets so far. However, he has stated that as and when money is available the amount due to the petitioner shall be released as expeditiously as possible. In view of the above, rule is discharged. Writ petition is admitted." Present contempt petition was filed on 10.11.2003 alleging violation of the undertaking given on 13.8.2001 in a pending writ petition. 11. On notice having been issued, the same was contested and by way of defence an order was placed on record as Annexure R-11 vide which it has been observed that nothing more is payable to the petitioner. The order passed reads as under:- "Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh Subject : Claim for arrears - determination thereof, of Kanwar Singh Block Officer (Retired) w.e.f. 18.02.1969 to 31.12.1998. ORDER Shri Kanwar Singh Block Officer was appointed as such in the pay scale of Rs. 250-15-400-20-500. His services were terminated on 16.02.1969 which were challenged by him in Labour Court in Ref No. 206/70 and the same was decided in his favour vide Award dated 2/2/78 and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 30% back wages. 250-15-400-20-500. His services were terminated on 16.02.1969 which were challenged by him in Labour Court in Ref No. 206/70 and the same was decided in his favour vide Award dated 2/2/78 and he was ordered to be reinstated with continuity of service and 30% back wages. The award was challenged by the Corporation i.e. PLDRC in CWP No. 1854 of 1980 (PLDRC v. the Presiding Officer & others) which was admitted and the operation of the award was stayed. Shri Kanwar Singh also, subsequently challenged award in CWP No. 3308 of 1980 (Kanwar Singh v. PLDRC & Others) which was also admitted on 17.9.1980 and ordered to be heard alongwith CWP No. 1854 of 1980. 2. Both these writ petitions i.e. 1854 of 1980 and 3308 of 1980 were listed in the High Court together and were dismissed in default on 30.10.1992. The Corporation did not come to know about the listing and dismissal in default of its writ petition, nor it was informed by its counsel. However, Shri Kanwar Singh came to know of the decision and got the same restored. The said CWP No. 3308 of 1980 was later on decided ex-parte by the Court on 4.10.1996 by Honble Justice V.K. Bali. The back wages were modified from 30% to 100%. Thereafter, Shri Kanwar Singh filed another CWP No. 10776 of 1996 for the execution of the award of the Labour Court as modified by the Honble Court vide order dated 4.10.1996. It was ordered in the said writ petition that the corporation would also pay 15% interest. Shri Kanwar Singh thereafter, filed COCP No. 190 of 1998 in order to get the award of the labour Court and the judgment rendered by the High Court in CWP No. 10776 of 1997 executed. Shri Kanwar Singh retired in between & a payment of Rs. 202575/- as arrears of back wages with interest was paid vide cheque No. 0312510 dated 8.1.1999 which was given in the court during the proceedings of COCP No. 190 of 1998, which was dismissed on 16.2.1999 after the making of payment and reinstatement of Shri Kanwar Singh. The operative part of the order dated 16.2.1999 is reproduced as under :- "It is not disputed that in pursuance to the Court direction the award of the Labour Court has since been implemented and that petitioner was made to join duty. He has since superannuated. The operative part of the order dated 16.2.1999 is reproduced as under :- "It is not disputed that in pursuance to the Court direction the award of the Labour Court has since been implemented and that petitioner was made to join duty. He has since superannuated. The only claim, which has now to be met by the Corporation, is in regard to back wages to be paid to him. Admittedly a sum of Rs. Two Lacs has been paid to him. This does not appear to be the full amount of wages due to the petitioner on the basis of award of Labour Court. He is directed to approach the Corporation for recovery of the balance amount and in case the same is not paid, it will be open to him to pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act. No case for contempt is made out. Consequently the petition is dismissed." 3. Shri Kanwar Singh submitted a claim on 30.5.1999 to the corporation, in pursuance of the order of the Honble Court amounting to Rs. 30,72,989/- including interest of 15%. The said claim is annexed to the reply filed by the Corporation in the Honble High Court in COCP No. 1561 of 2003 titled as Kanwar Singh v. Dhupinder Singh M.D. PLDRC and is marked as annexure R-5. 4. The perusal of the claim shows that it is inflated and is not based on actual scales of pay and allowances in force in the Corporation. Therefore, the corporation calculated the arrears due to Shri Kanwar Singh for the period in question, which amounts to Rs. 8,93,550.80 excluding interest. It doesnt include the house rent claimed by Shri Kanwar Singh because he was not in service during the claim period. The house rent is compensatory in nature. Jt includes fixed medical allowance w.e.f. January 1998 when it was introduced by the Government by notification/circular No. 5/22/97-IFPI/11179 dated 31/12/97. The calculations of the arrears due and the Punjab Government circular are at Annexures-A and B respectively. 5. The perusal of the judgment dated 4.10.1996 shows that it has followed the Full Bench decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hari Palace v. The Presiding Officer, 1979 PLR 720 wherein, the Full Bench held that the illegally retrenched workman, when reinstated is entitled to full back wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed during the enforced idleness. Enquiries were made and it came to notice that Shri Kanwar Singh owns 1.9 Acres of Agriculture land in village Shahpur Begu Tehsil Sirsa. The break up of the said land is : Canal irrigated (nehri) = 61K - 01 Marla, Well irrigated (chahi) = 89K - 01 Marla & rest 3K - 01 Marla. The Jamabandi of the land is annexed to the reply of COCP No. 1561 of 2003 in the Honble High Court as annexure R-6. The said land is fertile and is self cultivated, from 1969 till 1998-99 i.e. till Sh. Kanwar Singh retired from the service of the corporation. Copies of khasra girdawari of the land owned and self-cultivated by Sh. Kanwar Singh are collectively at Annexure C. 6. Sh. Kanwar Singh was asked vide letter dated 5.7.06 to furnish an affidavit as to whether he was gainfully employed or not during the period he claimed arrears showing the extent of his earnings and source of earnings in order to determine the payable arrears. This letter was sent to Sh. Kanwar Singh through registered post but Sh. Kanwar Singh has not furnished the affidavit, so far. Copy of the letter dated 5.7.06 is annexed with this letter as Annexure-D. 7. Sh. Kanwar Singh is B.Sc. (Agriculture). He had (Had he ?) been in the service of the corporation during the said period, the corporation would have got the benefit of his skill and services. He was not in service and he devoted his time, energy and skill to the self-cultivation of the land in his village Shahpur Begu Tehsil Sirsa (Haryana) comprising about 19 Acres. In Haryana State v. Rajbir, 1998(4) R(sic) 629, if the employee was relieved his duties on acceptance of resignation, the question arose if he being gainfully self employed was entitled to claim the arrears of salary consequent upon quashing of the order of accepting the resignation. The Honble Court held that "we do not consider it appropriate that the employer should bear the burden of salary for the period during which the employee was practicing as an Advocate i.e. was gainfully employed." In the said case respondent Rajbir who was qualified as Law Graduate and after his resignation got license from Bar Council for practicing law as an advocate. The contention was when termination of service is found illegal the employee deserves full back wages. The contention was when termination of service is found illegal the employee deserves full back wages. In Para 8 of the judgment it is held as under :- "This, undoubtedly, is the general view. However, in the present case it appears that the respondent had submitted the resignation with the purpose of starting legal practice, when his resignation was accepted before the due date he had not protested but had actually availed of the opportunity to obtain a license. The license having been obtained on July 3, 1990 for permission to withdraw the resignation was a device for use at a later stage. The respondent conducted cases. He claims to have earned only an amount of Rs. 13,000/-. It may be so. Yet the fact remains that the respondent was gainfully employed. He had not started legal practice on account of the termination of his services. In fact, he had resigned to start legal practice. In this situation, we do not consider it appropriate that the employer should bear the burden of the salary for the period during which the employee was practicing as an Advocate." A copy of the judgment is annexed as Annexure-E. 8. Therefore, the earnings from self cultivation from land owned by Sh. Kanwar Singh are to be deducted from the arrears due to him because he was gainfully employed in self-cultivation of land owned by him. He has installed a tubewell there and also having a tractor as per the enquiries made by the Corporation. A letter was written on 21.08.2006 to the Collector Sirsa (Haryana) to supply the batai and yield rates of the different crops of Agriculture year-wise as per record maintained in his collectorate from 1973-1999 to assess the earnings of Sh. Kanwar Singh. The Collector Sirsa (Haryana) has supplied the information and also have assessed the earnings of Sh. Kanwar Singh year-wise vide letter No. 5057/sk dated 21.09.06. Copy of Collector Sirsa dated 21/9/2006 is at Annexure-F. The earnings of self-employment from the said land owned by Shri Kanwar Singh as assessed by the Revenue Authorities as per the said order of Collector Sirsa, as per the crops sown by Kanwar Singh from Kharif 1980 to Rabi 2000 amount to Rs. 29,02,659/25 and calculating it from the said chart upto kharif 1998 to comes out to Rs. 24,26,412/50. 29,02,659/25 and calculating it from the said chart upto kharif 1998 to comes out to Rs. 24,26,412/50. The data before the year 1979 is not available with the revenue authorities concerned and are not in a position to assess the earning of Kanwar Singh of his self employment from 18.2.1969 to 31.12.1979, as such these are to be estimated from the data supplied by the authorities from 1980 to 2000. Taking the earnings of self employment from 18.2.1969 to 31.12.1979 @ Rs. 50,000/- per year, the same come out to be Rs. 6,00,000/- because the earnings from self employment from the year 1980 to 1998 amount to Rs. 24,26,412/50. Therefore the earning from gainful employment for the period in question amount to Rs. 30,26,412/50. The earnings of gainful employment, thus, far exceed the arrears of salary of the claim period. 9. The arrears due to Sh. Kanwar Singh as worked out in as per annexure A is Rs. 8,93,503/-80. A cheque of Rs. 2,02,575/- was given to Sh. Kanwar Singh vide cheque No. 0312510 dated 8.1.1999 and therefore, the remaining arrears as worked out are of Rs. 6,90,928/-. The earnings from gainful employment are Rs. 30,26,412/50. Thus, the earnings of gainful employment during the period in question are more than the amount of arrears worked out, therefore nothing more is payable to Sh. Kanwar Singh following the principle of no unjust enrichment." 12. The order passed prima facie amounts to contempt of the Court as the Managing Director of the Corporation had no right or basis to sit over the Division Bench Judgment of this Court and give his own interpretation to deny the benefits. It was in view of this that the case was adjourned to enable the Managing Director to release the payment to the petitioner. However, as the payment was not made, the case was ordered to be heard on merit. 13. Mr. R.L. Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent is guilty of having committed the Contempt of Court as he has failed to honour the commitment to make the payment of back wages along with interest as directed by the Honble Division Bench of this Court. Mr. M.L. Puri and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents have contested the contempt petition. Mr. M.L. Puri and Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents have contested the contempt petition. Though the facts mentioned above have not been disputed, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently contended that in view of the order dated 25.9.2006 no contempt petition is competent as the petitioner has the remedy to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, therefore, is that by passing the impugned order the respondents have complied with the orders passed by this Court and, therefore, there is no question of contempt having been committed. However, this contention is totally misconceived and outcome of misinterpretation of the order passed by this Court on 4.10.1996. 14. In C.W.P. No. 3308 of 1980, this Court has categorically held that the management had not brought on record any proof regarding employment of the petitioner and there was nothing to disbelieve the statement of workman. It was held that the petitioner would be entitled to full back wages from the date he made a demand upto the date of his reinstatement. The interpretation given by the learned counsel for the respondents to the order passed by this Court to the effect that it was within the competence of the Corporation to pass this order by interpreting the same is prima facie misconceived. Therefore, it has to be held that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. 15. Faced with this situation, the learned counsel for the respondent questioned the maintainability of the contempt petition on the ground of limitation. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the alleged undertaking, which is said to have been violated was made on 13.8.2001, whereas the present contempt petition was filed only on 10.11.2003. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the limitation is one year and, therefore, the present petition is time barred. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2763. In support of this contention the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Pallav Sheth v. Custodian and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2763. Para 44 of the said judgment reads as under :- "Action for contempt is divisible into two categories, namely, that initiated suo motu by the Court and that instituted otherwise than on the Courts own motion. The mode of initiation in each case would necessarily be different. While in the case of suo motu proceedings, it is the Court itself which must initiate by issuing a notice. In other cases initiation can only be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that action must be initiated, either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." There is force in this contention. 16. Besides this, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that against the order passed by this Court in COCP No. 190 of 1998 an appeal No. 15 of 1998 was filed, which was dismissed by this Court on 29.5.2004 by observing as under :- "We have considered the submissions made by Shri Tiwari. In our view, the order dated 15.3.1999 passed by the Learned Single Judge need not be construed to mean as it has conferred an independent cause of action upon the Respondent-Workman to pursue his legal remedy. It is self-evident from the aforementioned order that the learned Single Judge declined to review his order dated 16.2.1999, therefore, his observations that "the Applicant-Workman will be at liberty to pursue whatever remedy is available to him under the Law in case the amount due to him, if any, is not paid", need to be read in conjunction and in continuation of the order dated 16.2.1999. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the remedy available to the workman for recovery of the balance amount, if any, would be one under Section 33-C(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act as neither the disputed questions of fact regarding kinds of monetary claims can be gone into in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act can be allowed to be converted into execution proceedings of a judgment, order or direction of the Court. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed being infructuous with no order as to costs." 17. The petitioner thereafter moved an application i.e. C.M. No. 17636-CII of 2004 in CACP No. 15 of 1998 for modification of this order. The said application was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.5.2005 by observing as under :- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length, we are of the view that since CACP No. 15 of 1998 had arisen out of an interlocutory order dated 31.8.1998 in COCP No. 190 of 1998 and subsequently the said contempt petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 16.2.1999 after making certain observations, namely, leaving it open for the workman to approach the Corporation for recovery of the balance amount and in case the same, was not paid to him to pursue his remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, we had rightly read and construed the subsequent order dated 15.3.1999 in conjunction with the order dated 16.2.1999. In our view, the learned Single Judge neither intended nor passed an order adverse to the management on 15.3.1999 without issuing any notice or hearing to it. It is for this precise reason that the learned Single Judge in his aforesaid order clearly stated that there was no ground to review his order dated 16.2.1999. The cumulative effect of the orders dated 16.2.1999 and 15.3.1999 would be that if the applicant/respondent/workman is aggrieved at non-payment of the full arrears of the back wages, he will have to have recourse under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 only. In our view, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are a matter between the Court and the contemner and the scope of these proceedings cannot be enlarged and made a substitute for execution proceedings at the instance of a complainant. In our view, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are a matter between the Court and the contemner and the scope of these proceedings cannot be enlarged and made a substitute for execution proceedings at the instance of a complainant. However, if the applicant-workman can establish his right to recover any monetary benefit from the Corporation independently before the Writ Court, our judgment and order dated 29.5.2004 does not and would not preclude him from claiming such benefits. The present application, therefore, is disposed of with the clarification and modification of the order dated 29.5.2004 to the extent that it would be open for the applicant/respondent/workman to have recourse under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the recovery of balance amount, if any, and/or to establish his claim for any other monetary benefit independently before this Court in the Writ proceedings. He, however, cannot be permitted to interpret the order dated 15.3.1999 passed by the learned Single Judge in a contempt petition which had already been dismissed to mean as if he can initiate fresh contempt proceedings against the authorities of the Corporation so as to get his monetary benefits recovered under the threat of such proceedings. Disposed of." In view of the Division Bench judgment, referred to above and also taking note of the fact that present contempt is not restricted to undertaking but also to violation of order passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 10776 of 1997, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue the present contempt petition, though, he can press his writ petition, which is pending in this Court for release of arrears of his salary and retiral benefits in accordance with law. In view of the limitation prescribed and order passed by the Division Bench, referred to above, I am left with no option but to dismiss this contempt petition by holding it to be not maintainable. Dismissed. Rule Discharged. Petition dismissed.