1. ' Respondent Ghulam Hussain had preferred a grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.
2. 0., before the learned Labour Court, praying for a direction to the Metropolitan Steel Corporatio 1 Ltd., of which he was an employee. For entitlement to the benefit under the settlement, dated 20th December, 1978 arrived at between the above Corporation and the collective bargaining agent in that establishment. This grievance petition was rejected by the learned Labour Court by the decision given on 18th February, 1980. The learned Labour Court held that as the respondent, Ghulam Hussain, had chosen to be governed by the terms and conditions of W. P I. D. C., he was not entitled to the benefits under the settlement arrived at on 20th December, 1978. On appeal the Ghulam Hussain, this Tribunal by its order, dated 19th May, 1980, upheld the decision and the findings of the learned Labour Court and observed that as the workman himself had refused to be governed by the terms and contions of employment applicable to the employees of the Metropolitan Steel Corporation and on the contrary had insisted on being governed by the terms and conditions applicable to the employees of W. P. I. D. C.. From where he had been sent to the Metropolitan Steel Corporation, he could not be allowed to pick and choose the more advantageous terms of both the organizations and reject the loss advantageous terms.
3. ' Despite the above orders of the learned Labour Court, workman Ghulam Hassain filed an application before the authority under the Payment of Wages Act for the grant to him of the benefits occurring under the settlement of 20th December, 1978. This application was resisted by the Metropolitan Steel Corporation on the ground that the matter stood concluded by the decision of this Tribunal. However, Z. H. Hydri, the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, rejected this objection of the corporation and directed that the claim for wages made by workman Ghulam Hussain would proceed on merits. On the matter being brought to the notice of this Tribunal, a notice was issued to the 3 respondents why action should not be taken against them in contempt.
4. This notice was issued on the basis of the decision of my learned predecessor in the case reported in 1980 PLC 143.
5. All the respondents, who are present in person, have submitted an unconditional apology in writing and have further submitted that it was not their intention to commit contempt of this Tribunal nor can they think to do so. As the apology tendered is unconditional and it has been given at the earliest opportunity and further more as the proceedings before the Payment of Wages Authority have been withdrawn. I would accept the, same and would drop further proceedings against all the respondents. /Proceedings dropped.