No wilful contempt arises where challenged interest directions are stayed and interim High Court orders followed.

The applicant, a retired Safai Karamchari of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), initiated contempt proceedings alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order in OA No. 2778/2021.

Although the principal amounts and interest on certain retiral benefits had been paid, the applicant contended that interest was required to be paid at 12% under the original order, whereas the MCD had paid interest at the applicable General Provident Fund (GPF) rates.

He further alleged that interest on certain amounts and periods had not been paid at all.

The respondents contended that the rate of interest had been conclusively addressed by a Full Bench of the Tribunal, which had held that the applicable GPF rate was payable.

They further stated that the Full Bench decision and the original order were under challenge before the High Court, which had stayed the relevant interest direction and directed payment at the applicable GPF rate during the pendency of the proceedings.

Whether the respondents had wilfully or deliberately disobeyed the Tribunal’s directions by paying interest at the applicable GPF rate instead of 12%.

Whether the applicant was entitled to pursue the contempt proceedings in respect of alleged shortfall or non-payment of interest while the relevant interest directions were under challenge before the High Court.

In contempt or compliance proceedings, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to determining whether there has been wilful or deliberate disobedience of its binding directions.

Where the interpretation, rate, or entitlement forming the basis of alleged non-compliance is itself pending adjudication before a superior court, and the parties are acting in accordance with interim directions issued by that court, contempt jurisdiction should not ordinarily be exercised absent clear and wilful disobedience.

The Tribunal also considered the effect of the High Court’s direction permitting payment of interest at the applicable GPF rate during the pendency of the proceedings.

The original order directed payment of interest at 12%, while the respondents paid interest at the GPF rate pursuant to the Full Bench decision and the subsequent interim directions of the High Court.

Since both the rate of interest and the entitlement to such interest were under challenge before the High Court, the respondents’ conduct had to be assessed in the context of the operative High Court directions.

The Tribunal held that, where the parties were pursuing their remedies before the High Court and the respondents were acting in accordance with its interim order, the record did not establish the requisite wilful or deliberate disobedience.

Any dispute regarding computation or entitlement was therefore not appropriate for determination in the pending contempt proceedings.

The Contempt Petition was accordingly closed for the present, without costs.

The applicant was granted liberty to seek revival after the High Court’s decision or in the event of any subsequent wilful non-compliance with the Tribunal’s directions.