Contempt proceedings closed after undertaking to pay arrears, with liberty to approach the Tribunal upon default.

The petitioners instituted contempt petitions alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions in the connected original applications concerning payment of admissible arrears.

The parties agreed that the issue in both contempt petitions was identical and that they could be heard and disposed of by a common order.

The respondents were required to disburse arrears to 176 petitioners. By the date of hearing, arrears had been paid to 143 petitioners, while 33 petitioners remained unpaid.

The respondents filed a compliance affidavit dated 31 August 2026 in C.P. No. 737/2025.

Through counsel, the respondents stated that steps had been initiated to pay the remaining 33 petitioners and sought four weeks’ further time, stated to be a final opportunity, to complete compliance.

Whether the respondents had complied with the Tribunal’s directions regarding payment of admissible arrears to all eligible petitioners.

Whether the contempt petitions should remain pending, or be closed upon the respondents’ undertaking to pay the admissible dues of the remaining 33 petitioners within the requested period.

The Tribunal applied the principle that compliance with its operative directions concerning payment of admissible dues may be secured through contempt proceedings, but that proceedings may be closed where the respondents acknowledge the outstanding obligation and undertake to complete compliance within a specified period.

The Tribunal also preserved the petitioners’ procedural right to seek revival or further appropriate relief through a miscellaneous application in the event of default.

No statute or judicial precedent was expressly relied upon in the order.

The Tribunal noted that complete compliance had not yet occurred because arrears remained unpaid to 33 of the 176 petitioners.

Nevertheless, the respondents had filed a compliance affidavit and represented that action had already been initiated to discharge the remaining dues.

Accepting that representation and the request for four weeks’ time as a final opportunity, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to close the contempt petitions rather than continue them, while safeguarding the petitioners through liberty to approach the Tribunal by way of an M.A. if the promised payments were not made.

It clarified that, in the event of default, the petitioners could approach the Tribunal through an M.A., including one filed under the signatures of their counsel.