Karnataka High Court
Basawaraj S/O Shivaram Gachidoddi vs Sri Muniraju And Ors on 2 March, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CCC NO.200268/2016 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
Basawaraj
S/o Shivaram Gachidoddi
Age 30 years, Occ: Nil
R/o Tharnalli, Post: Janthi
Tq. Bhalki, Dist. Bidar-585413.
...COMPLAINANT
(By Sri P. Vilas Kumar Marthand Rao, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Muniraju
The Managing Director
Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company Ltd.,
Opp. Pariwar Hotel, Main Road,
Kalaburagi-585102.
2. Sri M.M. Pawar
The Superintendent Engineer
Electrical (O & M Circle),
GESCOM, Kalaburagi-585102.
2
3. Sri Basawaraj Patil
The Executive Engineer
GESCOM, O & M Division
Bidar-585402.
...ACCUSED
This CCC is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Contempt of Court Act, praying to initiate contempt
proceedings against the accused for not complying the order
passed in Writ Petition No.80003/2010 (L-TER) dated
02.11.2015 which is at Annexure-A.
This CCC coming on for orders this day, Aravind
Kumar J., made the following:
ORDER
Present contempt proceedings have been initiated by the complainant against respondents alleging willful disobedience of the order passed in W.P.No.80003/2010 (L-Ter) dated 02.11.2015. The registry of this Court has raised the following objection:
"The Advocate for the complainant clarify the main prayer, in maintainability of CCC., since there is no reference to comply the order of the Labour Court passed in WP.80003/10 (L-TER) dated 02.11.2015 which was filed by the accused/petitioner therein."3
2. In reply learned counsel appearing for the complainant has endorsed to list the matter before Court and accordingly it has been listed before us. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for complainant.
3. It is the contention of Mr. P. Vilas Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the order of Labour Court directing reinstatement of the complainant/petitioner cannot be enforced by filing an execution petition and as such the order of Labour Court having become final by virtue of same having been affirmed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.80003/2010, the only recourse left open to the complainant is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and as such he has prayed for over-ruling the office objection.
4
4. Complainant has raised a dispute under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 questioning his dismissal order dated 23.06.2004 and same was allowed by the Labour Court by judgment and award dated 15.06.2009 and respondents were directed to reinstate the workman and it was held that workman is entitled for continuity of service and 40% back wages. Management-Corporation challenged said order of Labour Court in W.P.No.80002/2010 and said writ petition came to be dismissed and award of Labour Court came to be confirmed.
5. As noticed by us herein above, the order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P.No.80003/2010 on 02.11.2015 is to the effect that the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in KID No.183/2004 dated 15.06.2009 has been affirmed and writ petition filed by the employer came to be dismissed. In other words, the award of the Labour Court has reached finality as 5 on date (subject to appeal not having been filed by respondent - Corporation). An order passed by the Labour Court is executable under sub-section (9) of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As such, there being no positive direction issued in W.P.No.80003/2010 to the respondents - Corporation, we are of the considered view that the present contempt proceedings is not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, we uphold office objection and dismiss this contempt petition. It is needless to state that the complainant - workman would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law as observed by us herein above.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE swk