Judgment :- This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondent for having committed contempt of Court by wilfull disobeying the order, dated 12. 2005, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.15974 of 2005. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that by an order, dated 12. 2005, made in W.P.No.15974 of 2005, this Court had set aside the ex-parte award of the labour Court, dated 16. 2004, made in I.D.No.124 of 2003 and the matter was remitted back for a fresh trial before the said labour Court. However, while passing the said order, the learned Judge had directed as follows: "The Management shall pay the second respondent commencing from the month of November, 2005 onwards, the last wages drawn by him till the disposal of the remitted proceedings; payment for the month of November, 2005 shall be made to the workman on or before 12th December 2005 and likewise for the following months; the labour Court is directed to take up the I.D. for disposal in accordance with law and complete it, in any event, not later than 30.4.2006. it is made clear that if the disposal of the I.D. is delayed due to any unreasonable attitude of the workman and if the labour Court is satisfied that the workman is responsible for the delay of the disposal of the remitted proceedings, then, it is open to the management to stop the payment as ordered herein. It is also made clear that, if there is any default on the part of the writ petitioner in paying any of the monthly payments referred to above, then this order would stand recalled without any further reference of this Court." 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 12. 2005, had not been complied with, as the respondent had not paid the last drawn wages from the month of June, 2006. Thus, CSI Vellore Diocese, representing the Management of C.S.I. Jothi Nilayam Hospital, Vellore District, had committed contempt of Court. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent had not committed contempt of Court, as there was no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 12. 2005, made in W.P.No.15974 of 2005. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent had not committed contempt of Court, as there was no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 12. 2005, made in W.P.No.15974 of 2005. Since there was no Presiding Officer at the labour Court, Vellore District, the industrial dispute could not be disposed of, as directed by this Court. However, there has been some delay in the payment of the amount to be paid to the petitioner. 5. At the stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondent had submitted that the matter has been settled out of Court by the parties in the contempt petition by the payment of certain amount of money by the respondent to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned had submitted that no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the contempt petition stand closed, as no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petitions. No costs.