Judgment :- The above contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for wilfully disobeying the order, dated 16. 2004, made in W.P.No.16557 of 2004. 2. It is submitted by the petitioner that he was working in Union Motor Services from the year 1983 to 2001. After he had resigned from his post in the year 2001, his gratuity amount had remained unpaid. Therefore, the petitioner had filed a claim petition before the Assistant Commissioner (Labour), Coimbatore, in G.A.No.369 of 2002. By an order, dated 24. 2003, an award had been passed for a sum of Rs.44,653/- payable within 30 days. In spite of the award, the gratuity amount had not been paid as awarded and therefore, the petitioner had made a representation to the respondent to initiate revenue recovery proceedings for recovering the said amount from the second respondent in the writ petition. Since no effective steps were taken by the respondent, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.16557 of 2004. By an order, dated 16. 2004, this Court had directed the respondent to realise the money determined by the award, dated 24. 2003, in G.A.No.369 of 2002, on the file of the Assistant Commissioner (Labour), Coimbatore. The respondent was also directed to disburse the amount to the petitioner, on or before 38. 2004. However, it was also made clear by the said order that if there was any legal disability for the first respondent to take such action, then the said order would not have effect. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that in spite of the order passed by this Court, on 16. 2004, the respondent had not complied with the directions issued therein. In such circumstances, the petitioner had preferred the present contempt petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that appropriate steps had been taken by the first respondent in the present contempt petition against Sonia Srinivasan, Managing Director, Union Motor Services, who was the second respondent in the writ petition W.P.No.16557 of 2004. While attempts were made to locate the second respondent in the writ petition at the address given by the petitioner, it was found that the second respondent had left the place. While attempts were made to locate the second respondent in the writ petition at the address given by the petitioner, it was found that the second respondent had left the place. When the information was communicated to the petitioner, he had given another address, which is M/s. Union Motors Services Limited, 15/43, Garden Road, Ootacamund Town where she was said to be residing. However, on further enquiry by the respondent, it was found that Sonia Srinivasan, was not living in the said address. 5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent had further submitted that the respondent had taken all necessary steps pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, by its order, dated 16. 2004. However, only due to the fact that the petitioner had not given the correct address of Sonia Srinivasan, further action could not be taken. 6. It was also submitted that as and when the petitioner is able to give the correct address of Sonia Srinivasan and the required particulars about the properties, appropriate action would be taken by the respondent to implement the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 16. 2004, made in W.P.No.16557 of 2004. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent has not committed contempt of Court, as alleged by the petitioner. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. No costs.