Karnataka High Court
Smt Anthony Carmel Marry A vs Sri B R Lingaraju on 2 November, 2022
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashok S.Kinagi
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.PRASANNA B.VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI
C.C.C NO. 823 OF 2022 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANTHONY CARMEL MARRY A,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
COMPUTER OPERATOR/TYPIST,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE TUMKUR,
B.H. ROAD,
BADRAMMA CIRCLE,
TUMUKUR - 572 101.
2. SMT. LAKSHMI U AWARI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE HAVERI,
MANGAVE CHAMBERS,
2ND FLOOR, P.B. ROAD,
HAVERI - 581 110.
3. SMT. MANULA B PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE DHARWAD,
D.C. COMPOUND BEHIND LAW COLLEGE,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
4. SMT. POORNIMA G,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
COMPUTER OPERATOR/TYPIST,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE SHIVAMOGGA,
-2-
D.C. COMPOUND,
R.T.O. OFFICE ROAD,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
5. SMT. HEMA N.J.,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
COMPUTER OPERATOR/TYPIST,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
PADMA BUILDING,
RATHNAGIRI ROAD,
CHIKKAMGALORE - 577 101.
6. SRI MANJUNATH G PATHEPUR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
NIGHT WATCH/PEON,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE
HAVERI MANGAVE CHAMBERS
2ND FLOOR, P.B. ROAD,
HAVERI - 581 110.
7. SMT. SAVAITHA M PATEL,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
COMPUTER OPERATOR,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE
KOPPAL PCA AND RD BANK BUILDING,
BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
HOSPET ROAD,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
8. SRI D V HUDEJALI,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
PEON,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE KOPPAL
PCA AND RD BANK BUILDING,
BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE,
HOSPET ROAD,
KOPPAL - 583 231.
9. SRI SATTAR KHAN H,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
-3-
PEON,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE DAVANAGERE,
NO.310,
SHIVA SADANA PAVILION ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
10. SRI KALESHAPPA J.G.,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
DRIVER,
K.S.C.A. AND R.D. BANK LTD.,
BRANCH OFFICE DAVANAGERE,
NO.310,
SHIVA SADANA PAVILION ROAD,
DAVANAGERE - 577 004.
... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI UDAYA KUMAR R.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI B R LINGARAJU,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.,
TIPPU SULTAN PALACE ROAD,
CHAMARAJPET,
BENGALURU - 560 018.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI SUSHAIL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE)
---
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANTS,
RESPECTFULLY PRAYS THAT THE HONBLE COURT BE
PLEASED TO TRY TO PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR NOT
OBEYING / COMPLYING THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2021 BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT PASSED IN WP NO.51270/2019
(S-RES) AND ETC.
THIS CCC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the complainants.
2. On a grievance that the order of this Court
dated 08.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.51270/2019 is not complied with, the present
contempt petition is filed.
3. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated
08.01.2021, considering the submission that the
representations submitted by the complainants to the
accused with regard to payment of equal pay for equal work
are not considered, directed the accused to consider the
representations of the complainants keeping in mind the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh and others reported in AIR
2016 SC 5176, followed by a co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in W.P.No.11249/2015 and connected matters
disposed on 09.10.2020 and to pass appropriate orders
within stipulated period of three months from the date of
receipt of copy of the order and disposed of the writ
petition.
4. Notice was issued to the accused. In response
to the notice, the accused submitted the compliance
affidavit.
5. A perusal of the compliance affidavit shows that
on receipt of the copy of the order dated 08.01.2021, the
accused-Karnataka State Co-operative Agriculture and
Rural Development Bank Limited (Bank) conducted internal
deliberations with various Authorities and legal opinion was
also sought for. Thereafter, the Board of the accused-Bank
conducted a meeting on 22.09.2022 and passed orders on
the representations of the complainants on 20.10.2022.
The copy of these orders and its translation are annexed to
the compliance affidavit. Thus, it can be safely said that on
the representations submitted by the complainants, a
decision is taken by the accused.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the
complainants submits that the decision suffers on various
grounds and the Board of the accused-Bank has failed to
consider the representations filed by the complainants in its
proper perspective and has arrived at an erroneous
decision.
7. Though, these are the submissions of the
learned counsel for the complainants, in our opinion, in a
contempt petition, this Court is not expected to decide the
decision pursuant to the directions of this Court on its
merits. This Court, considers only the limited aspect in the
contempt petition namely, whether there is a compliance of
the order of this Court or there is a willful disobedience of
the order of this Court. As of now, the order of this Court is
duly complied with and the decision is taken on the
representations of the complainants. In case, the
complainants are aggrieved by the said decision, they are
at liberty to challenge the said decision before the
appropriate forum, if so advised.
8. The learned counsel for the accused, on
instructions, submits before this Court that the amount to
which the complainants are entitled to, as per the decision,
would be paid to them within one month from today. This
statement is accepted as an undertaking to this Court.
9. The contempt petition is accordingly disposed
of. The proceedings are dropped. Notice is discharged.
10. In view of disposal of the contempt petition,
pending interlocutory application does not survive for
consideration and is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KPS
