Karnataka High Court
Raithara Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane vs Shri Dr. E.V.Raman Reddy on 6 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4919-DB
CCC No. 100279 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100279 OF 2022
BETWEEN
1. RAITHARA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE
EMPLOYEES UNION, RANNA NAGAR,
TIMMAPUR, TALUK MUDHOL,
DISTRICT BAGALKOT IS REPRESENTED
BY ITS PRESIDENT.
2. IRAPPAGOUDA G. PATIL,
AGE:57 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF
R S S K EMPLOYEES UNION,
R/O: RANN NAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
MUDHOL-587122, TQ.MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
Digitally signed by
SAMREEN AYUB 3. UMESH M. BADIGER,
DESHNUR
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:VICE PRESIDENT OF
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R S S K EMPLOYEES UNION,
KARNATAKA R/O: RANN NAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
MUDHOL-587122, TQ.MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
4. PRAKASH B. KABBUR,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: SECRETARY OF
R S S K EMPLOYEES UNION,
R/O: RANN NAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
MUDHOL-587122, TQ.MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4919-DB
CCC No. 100279 of 2022
5. NAGAPPA S. KELAGADE
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: MEMBER OF
R S S K EMPLOYEES UNION,
R/O: RANN NAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
MUDHOL-587122, TQ.MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
6. KALLAPPA M.KUMBAR
AGE:38 YEARS, OCC. MEMBER OF
R S S K EMPLOYEES UNION,
R/O: RANN NAGAR, TIMMAPUR,
MUDHOL-587122, TQ.MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE.
... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SMT. VEENA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. SHRI DR. E.V. RAMAN REDDY,
ADDL. CHIEF. SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES, M.S.BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SHRI SHIVANAND H. KALAKERI,
THE COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT
AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
KHB BUILDING, 5TH FLOOR,
"F" BLOCK, CBAB BUILDING COMPLEX,
KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
BENGALURU-560009.
3. SHRI P. SUNIL KUMAR,
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOTE, DIST. BAGALKOTE.
4. SHRI VENKATESH A. SHINDIHATI,
THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER
AND CONCILIATION OFFICER,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4919-DB
CCC No. 100279 of 2022
5. SHRI RAMAPPA SIDAPPA TALEWAD
THE RYATAR SAHAKARI SAKKARE
KARKHANE NIYAMIT, RANN NAGAR,
TIMMAPUR MUDHOL-587122.
6. SHRI MALLIKARJUN PUJARI
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR,
CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY,
BAGALKOT.
7. SRI SUKADEVA BANSAWADI,
THE FACTORY INSPECTOR,
BAGALKOTE DIVISION, AT POST:
THE OFFICE OF THE ASST. DIRECTOR
FACTORY, PLOT NO.45,
SHIVABASAVANAGAR MARG,
80 FEET ROAD, BELAGAVI,
DIVISION BELAGAVI.
8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHAN SOUDA, BENGALURU.
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO.5;
SRI G.K. HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADV.FOR ACCUSED NO.8;
NOTICE TO ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 AND 6 SERVED;
ACCUSED NOS.4 AND 7 ARE SERVICE AWAITED)
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE
COURT BE PLEASED TO, PUNISH THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT
FOR THE WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P.NO.100063/2021 DATED 21/09/2021 AND GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
M.I.ARUN, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4919-DB
CCC No. 100279 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners are employees of Raithara Sahakari
Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Timmapur. On the ground that
they have not been paid their dues, they made
representations to the concerned authorities and filed Writ
Petition No.100063/2021. This Court has passed the
following order :
"Though several contentions are urged by the
petitioner in support of his claim, having regard to
the specific assertions on the part of the petitioner
that their representations at Annexures-V to V8
dated 11.11.2020 have not been considered by
the respondents No.1 and 2 and no orders have
been passed so far, without expressing any
opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival
contentions, I deem it just and proper to dispose
of this writ petition directing the concerned
respondents/ authorities to consider the said
representations, if not already considered, in
accordance with law, within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order. Ordered accordingly."
2. Pursuant to the said order, though belatedly, the
State has passed an order dated 08.12.2022, wherein it has
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4919-DB
directed the concerned factory to implement the order of 6th
Pay Commission and pay its employees accordingly.
However, the in-charge Managing Director of the Factory
has refused to consider the request of the petitioners on the
ground that the factory does not have the necessary
resources to implement the orders. It is contended by the
petitioners that the accused are in contempt of the order
passed in the writ petition.
3. The accused submit that their representations have
been considered and appropriate orders have been passed.
4. In the contempt petition, the Court can look into
the whether the orders passed by the Court have been
implemented or not. In the instant case, in Writ Petition
No.100063/2021, this Court without going into the merits of
the case directed the respondents concerned to consider the
request of the petitioners. The same has been considered
and rejected. The reasoning given by the in-charge
Managing Directed of the Factory may be most
inappropriate and unsustainable in law, but that does not
amount to contempt of the orders passed by this Court. The
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4919-DB
petitioners have all the liberty to challenge the same in the
manner known to law.
5. As the order of this Court has been complied by the
accused as mentioned above, the contempt petition is
hereby dropped.
6. It is needless to state that the petitioners have the
liberty to challenge the orders passed by the respondent in
the manner known to law, if they are aggrieved.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK, CT: UMD
