Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Yusuf S/O Bashasaheb Koppal ... vs Sri Nitin Hegade S/O Gopalkrishna on 6 November, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
CCC No.100104 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CCC NO.100104 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD YUSUF S/O BASHASAHEB KOPPAL
(SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.)
1. GOUSIYA BEGUM WIDOW
MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL,
AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. MOHAMMED YASIN S/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL
AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
3. HAJARAT BILAL S/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
4. MISS. TABASSUM D/O MOHAMMAD YUSUF KOPPAL
AGE. 15 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
5. SMT. YASMI W/O IMAN OLI
AGE. 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
VINAYAKA
BV
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
ALL ARE R/O: SAI COLONY GOUDIKERI-572216,
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. A S R NAMAZI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. NITIN HEGADE S/O GOPALKRISHNA
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
NWKRTC, BAGALKOT DIVISION, BAGALKOT.
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. PRASHANT S. HOSMANI, ADVOCATE)
-2-
CCC No.100104 of 2025
THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950, PRAYING TO INITIATE THE CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED AND PUNISH THEM FOR
WILLFUL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE
COURT, BENCH DHARWAD IN W.A.NO.100311/2024 DATED.
02/12/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY MARKED AT
ANNEXURE-A & ETC.
THIS CCC HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 30.10.2025
AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY,
S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
This contempt petition is filed under Sections 11 and 12
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of
the Constitution of India complaining disobedience of order
dated 9.2.2024 passed in WP No.110629/2019, whereunder
this Court passed the following order:
"It is also stated at the Bar that the petitioner
after the award was passed was not able to rejoin the
duties as he had suffered a paralytic stroke. In that view of the
matter, the Corporation is directed to ensure that the backwages
and other consequential benefits awarded by the Labour Court
are made over to the wife of the deceased-workman i.e. Gousia
Begam within a period of two months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order."
-3-
CCC No.100104 of 2025
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.A.S.R Namazi for the
complainants and learned counsel Sri. Prashant S Hosamani
for the accused. Perused the contempt petition papers.
3. NWKRTC was before this Court in WP
No.110629/2019 questioning the award dated 30.11.2018
passed in KID No.21/2016 on the file of the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Bagalakot, whereunder the order
of dismissal of husband of the 1st complainant was set-aside
directing reinstatement of the workman into service with
continuity of service, backwages and all other consequential
benefits.
4. It is stated that the husband of the 1st complainant
died during the pendency of aforesaid writ petition. As the
direction of the learned Single Judge dated 9.2.2024 was not
complied by paying backwages and consequential benefits, the
complainants initiated contempt proceedings.
5. Notice was ordered in the above contempt
proceedings and on appearance, the accused has filed an
affidavit dated 10.10.2025 as well as affidavit dated
24.10.2025. In the affidavit dated 10.10.2025, the accused
stated that backwages, gratuity and leave encashment have
-4-
CCC No.100104 of 2025
been paid to the legal representatives of the deceased
workman and an acknowledgment is produced along with the
said affidavit for having paid a sum of Rs.7,39,532/- towards
backwages from the date of dismissal till date of award i.e.
30.11.2018, gratuity of Rs.3,07,675/- and Rs.11,174 and
Rs.2,36,034/- towards leave encashment. Thus, learned
counsel for the accused would submit that the accused has
complied with the order passed by this Court.
6. Learned counsel Sri. A.S.R. Namazi for the
complainants would contend that this Court directed to ensure
that the backwages and other consequential benefits awarded
by the Labour Court are made over to the wife of the
deceased workman. It is the specific contention of the
complainants that from the date of award till the husband of
the 1st complainant attained the age of superannuation, the
accused has failed to reinstate or pay wages. To the Court
query as to the workmen joined the duty subsequent to award
of the Labour Court, learned counsel for the complainants
would submit that due to medical reason, the deceased
workman could not report to duty.
-5-
CCC No.100104 of 2025
7. Learned counsel Sri. Prashant S Hosamani would
submit that the order of learned Single Judge was the subject
matter of WA No.100311/2024, which came to be dismissed
by judgment dated 2.12.2024. It is submitted that against
the said judgment, the Corporation preferred SLP (Diary)
No.15817/2025 before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the said
SLP came to be dismissed on 16.05.2025.
8. Learned counsel for the accused specifically
contended that immediately on passing of the interim order
by this Court in WP No.110629/2019 directing to reinstate
the workman, the respondent/Corporation on 26.9.2019 took
immediate action to intimate the workman to report to duty,
but despite several call letters vide Annexures-R6 to R8 and
R10, the workman failed to report to duty. It is submitted
that in the absence of workman joining the duty, despite call
letters, he submits that the legal representatives of the
deceased workman would not be entitled for wages for the
said period.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the contempt petition papers, whether non-
payment of wages from the date of award till date of
superannuation of the workman would amount to
disobedience of order passed by the learned Single Judge. In
our considered opinion, the same would not amount to
disobedience of order passed by this Court.
10. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.7,39,532/- towards
backwages, a sum of Rs.11,174/- and Rs.3,07,675/- towards
gratuity and a sum of Rs.2,36,034/- towards leave
encashment have been paid to the legal representatives of the
deceased workman. Admittedly, no wages have been paid to
the workman from the date of award i.e. 30.11.2018 till
workman attained the age of superannuation i.e. on
31.05.2020. It is an admitted fact that pursuant to
reinstatement order and the call letters issued by the
respondent/Corporation calling upon the workman to report to
duty, the workman failed to report to duty. The reason,
according to the learned counsel for the complainant, is that
the workman was medically unfit to report to duty. However,
no piece of material is placed on record to substantiate the
said contention. Moreover, the direction of learned Single
Judge is to ensure that the backwages as awarded by the
Labour Court are made over to the wife of the deceased
workman, is substantially complied. As such, we are of the
considered opinion that there is substantial compliance with
the order of learned Single judge.
11. However, it is open for the complainants to claim
wages for the period from the date of award of the Labour
Court till superannuation of the workman, by initiating
appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum by
establishing that the workman was not in a position to report
to duty due to medical reason and the same was intimated to
the respondent/Corporation. Whether the workman would be
entitled for the wages from the date of award i.e. 30.11.2018
till his superannuation on 31.05.2020, in the absence of he
reporting to duty, is to be determined.
12. With the above, the contempt proceedings stand
dropped.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
JTR
CT:VP
