Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 2. Originally an industrial dispute was raised before the Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.59 of 1999 regarding the date from which the seniority of the petitioner is to be counted. The Labour Court originally passed an exparte award which was challenged by the Management in W.P.No.43879 of 2002. The said writ petition came to be allowed setting aside the exparte award passed by the Labour Court and directing the Management to pay a cost of Rs.5,000/-to the petitioner herein. Pursuant to the said order, instead of making payment of the cost awarded by this Court, the Management chose to deposit the same in the Labour Court, Cuddalore by mistake. Subsequently, the Management came forward with a petition seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the said amount deposited in the Labour Court and to pay the same directly to the petitioner. The said petition was disposed of by this Court, by an order dated 02.07.2007, in which this Court made the following observation:- "After such payment being made to the petitioner, the 4th respondent the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, cuddalore is directed to dispose of the I.D.No.59 of 1999 after duly intimating the petitioner and the respondents 1 to 3 and pass appropriate orders on merits within a period of three months thereafter. It is made clear that any promotion made is subject to the result of the I.D." 3. Admittedly, pursuant to the said order, cost was paid to the petitioner herein and an award was passed by the Labour Court, Cuddalore on 12. 2007 after hearing both sides. The operative portion of the said order in vernacular language reads as follows: 4. Now the present petition has been filed claiming that the order of this Court dated 02.07.2007 made in W.P.M.P.No.19617 of 2004 in W.P.No.47845 of 2006 has been violated by all the respondents 1 to 4 herein and a prayer has been made to punish all the respondents. The order alleged to have been violated has already been extracted supra. The said order simply states that the ID should be disposed of within three months after the payment of the cost was made to the petitioner herein and that any promotion made would be subject to the result of the ID. The order alleged to have been violated has already been extracted supra. The said order simply states that the ID should be disposed of within three months after the payment of the cost was made to the petitioner herein and that any promotion made would be subject to the result of the ID. Admittedly, the Labour Court passed the award well within the period of three months prescribed by this Court. The Labour Court has held that the petitioners seniority must be counted with reference to the date of his entry into service namely, 011. 1981. Neither the award of the Labour Court nor the order of this Court incorporated any direction regarding the claim for promotion made by the petitioner. The present grievance of the petitioner is that pursuant to the award of the Labour Court, the Management has not given him promotion. 5. After going through the entire materials available on record, this Court is of the view that no such specific direction has been issued either by this Court or in the award passed by the Labour Court. Therefore, the present petition for contempt does not merit even for admission and the same deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. Before parting with the case, this Court wants to point out the fact that the petitioner has arrayed not only the Officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as respondents 1 to 3 but also the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Cuddalore as respondent No.4 in the contempt petition. The prayer made in the contempt petition has been couched in such a way that all the respondents should be punished for their alleged act of contempt. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand would submit that the petitioner does not have any intention to proceed against the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court for contempt and that the fourth respondent has been arrayed as a nominal party. This Court is not in a position to accept the said contention. The fourth respondent namely, the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, has been arrayed in his individual name as a party to the contempt petition. For a contempt petition, it is unnecessary to make any person who has not committed contempt, as a respondent. This Court is not in a position to accept the said contention. The fourth respondent namely, the Presiding Officer of Labour Court, has been arrayed in his individual name as a party to the contempt petition. For a contempt petition, it is unnecessary to make any person who has not committed contempt, as a respondent. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not made it clear either in the affidavit or in the petition that the petitioner does not seek an order punishing the fourth respondent. 8. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that the very fact that the petitioner has arrayed the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court as one of the contemnors is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and hence, it shall proper to direct the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court. 9. In the result, the Contempt Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/-as cost to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to the High Court. Connected sub applications are also dismissed.