Karnataka High Court
Workmen Of Ksca Club House vs Anil Kumble on 21 November, 2013
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, A.V.Chandrashekara
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE A V CHANDRASHEKARA
CCC (Civil) Nos. 1917 & 2154-60 of 2013
BETWEEN:
1. WORKMEN OF KSCA CLUB HOUSE
REP. BY THE KARNATAKA RAJYA
CRICKET ASSOCIATION,
CLUB HOUSE WORKERS' UNION
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO. 358/29, BANASHANKARI I STAGE
5TH MAIN, SRINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 050
2. THIMME GOWDA
S/O MASE GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
NOW WORKING IN THE
CRICKET STADIUM
MANGALORE
3. H B JAGANNATH
S/O BASAVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
WORKING IN THE KARNATAKA
STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
STADIUM AT ALUR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
2
4. V B ALPHONSE
S/O BENJAMIN
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
WORKING IN THE KARNATAKA
STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
STADIUM AT ALUR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
5. B P JAGANNATH
S/O PUTTEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING IN THE KARNATAKA
STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
STADIUM AT ALUR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
6. BYRE GOWDA
S/O B GANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
WORKING IN THE KARNATAKA
STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
STADIUM AT ALUR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
7. H T SHIVARAM
S/O THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING IN THE KARNATAKA
STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
STADIUM AT ALUR,
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT
8. G MUNIRAJU
S/O GANESHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
WORKING IN THE KARNATAKA
STATE CRICKET ASSOCIATION
STADIUM AT ALUR,
3
NELAMANGALA TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT ... COMPLAINANTS
[By Sri T A Karumbaiah, Adv.]
AND:
1. ANIL KUMBLE
HON. PRESIDENT
KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET
ASSOCIATION,
CHINNASWAMY STADIUM
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. JAVAGAL SRINATH
HON. SECRETARY
KARNATAKA STATE CRICKET
ASSOCIATION
CHINNASWAMY STADIUM
BANGALORE - 560 001 ... ACCUSED
[By Sri S N Murthy, Sr. Adv.]
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURT ACT R/W ARTICLE 215 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT, PRAYING TO
INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
FOR HAVING DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY DISOBEYED THE
ORDER PASSED IN W.P. NO. 33553/2004 DATED 19.03.2012 VIDE
ANNEXURE - C AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2013 PASSED
BY THIS COURT IN CCC NOS. 523-29/2013 AND CCC NO. 662/2013
VIDE ANNEXURE - E AND ETC.,
THESE CCCs COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
MANJUNATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
The only dispute in this contempt is whether the respondents have complied with the settlement arrived at between the parties herein in W.P. NO.17030/2007 and other connected matters. The Writ Petitions were disposed off pursuant to a Joint Memo filed by both the parties. In page 8 of the Joint Memo, the parties have agreed that the respondents have to pay the arrears of salary as per the appropriate pay scale and connected allowances and grade given to the workmen carrying out similar work with effect from the date of joining the work after deducting whatever has already paid to them by way of wages. The complainants herein have agreed to deduct their salary from 17.3.2003 till the Joint Memo is signed.
2. Later Contempt petitions were also filed before this court in CCC No.523-29/13 and CCC 662/13 which petitions came to be disposed off on 22.4.2013. On that day, it was submitted by the respondents that the order 5 has been complied with as payment has been made. At the time of accepting the submission made by the respondents, the then counsel who was appearing for the complaints herein brought to the notice of the court that there is a typographical error in the Memo filed by the respondents. Accordingly this court directed the respondents to rectify the mistake, if any, committed by them. It was also clarified while closing the Contempt Petitions that if there is a calculation error, the authorities are at liberty to approach the respondents and in such an event, the respondents shall recalculate the amount payable to the complainants.
3. The present petitions are filed on the ground that the wages paid to the complainants is not in terms of the settlement.
4. According to the learned counsel for the complainants their juniors are getting more salary though the complainants are working as Grade-II employees. 6
5. Mr. S.N. Murthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that as per the terms of the compromise what was agreed to be paid by way of wages is paid to Grade-II workmen. Accordingly, payment has been made after due calculation and there is no error.
6. Heard the counsels for the parties. If the employees who are juniors to the complainants and who are working in Grade-II and are getting more salary, cannot be a ground for us to pay the difference of the wages.
7. On perusal of the Joint Memo filed in the Writ Petitions, it is clear that what is to be paid by way of wages is initial wages attached to the post of Grade-II. This would only show that on account of the mistake committed by the complaints agreeing for the terms of settlement have to suffer. This court in a contempt petition cannot extend the scope or jurisdiction of the court and cannot give interpretation to the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties.
7
8. Accordingly, these contempt petitions are disposed of with the above observation.
SD/ JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE Ak