Karnataka High Court
Sri Rajanna N vs Sri Narayana Hegde on 26 July, 2017
Bench: Jayant Patel, S.Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA
C.C.C.Nos.205/2017 & 298-343/2017 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.RAJANNA.N
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O.T.NARAYANAPPA,
R/AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
2. SRI.RADHAKRISHNACHARI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O GOPALACHARI,
NO.77, GANDHIPRUAM,
WHITEFIELD,
BANGALORE-560066.
3. SRI.RAJU.M
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O M.MUNIYAPPA,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
4. SRI.CHIKKEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O BAYYANNA,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
2
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
5. SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
S/O ALWAR NAIDU,
NO.321, 6TH CROSS, GANDHIPURAM,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
6. SRI.PRATHAP KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O R.BALARAJ,
GANDHIPURAM,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
7. SRI.RAJU.K
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
PLATTANDUR AGRAHARA,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
8. SRI RAVIKUMAR.L
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O G.LAKSHMAN RAO,
C/O KRISHNEGOWDA COMPOUND,
HAGADUR,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
9. SRI A.N.MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
PATTANDUR AGRAHARA,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
10. SRI PRAKASH.V
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
3
S/O VENKATAPPA,
ONTIMANE,
GOLLARAHATTI MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560027.
11. SRI PRAKASH.K.
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O KULLATAPPA,
DUNNASANDRA,
SOMETAHALLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE-560067.
12. SRI NINGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O NINGEGOWDA,
BELTUR COLONY,
KADUGODI POST,
BANGALORE-560067.
13. SRI RAJASHEKAR.K
AGED ABOUT 40 EYARS,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
NEAR DHARMASWAMY TEMPLE,
NEAR GOVT. HIGH SCHOOL,
VARTHUR,
BANGALORE EAST.
14. SRI K.ANAND
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNAPPA,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
15. SRI RAJASHEKAR.D
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O DODDATAMMAYYANNA,
RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
16. SRI SRINIVSA.K.N
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4
S/O R.NARAYANSWAMY,
KLATITOOTA, RESIDENT OF IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
17. SRI SRINIVASA.R
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
MILK DAIRY,
OPP. IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
18. SRI SADASHIVA.H.C
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
D.HOSAHALLI,
DEVANAGUNDI POST,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE-560067.
19. SRI SHAMANNA
AGEDA BOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O CHINNAPPA,
TIRUMALASETTYHALLI,
SAMETANAHALLI POST,
BAGNALORE-560048.
20. SRI JAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O RAMASWAMY,
NO.65/1, CHINNASWAMY BUILDIGN,
ANNNASANDRAPALYA, HAL POST,
BANGALORE-560017.
21. SRI SURESH.M
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O M.MARIYAPPA,
TIRUMALASETTYHALLI, SAMETANAHALLI POST,
BANGALORE-560048.
22. SRI SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKANNA,
5
R/AT HAGADUR COLONY, IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
23. SRI MANJUNATH.M
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
R/AT THIMMANDAHALLI,
MUTHUSANDRA POST,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE-560066.
24. SRI MOHAN RAJU
AGED ABOUT 47 EYARS,
S/O LOKOSE,
R/AT NEW BYAPPANAHALLI,
INDIRANAGAR POST,
BANGALORE-560028.
25. SRI DIWAKAR.B.S
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O SANNEDEVEGOWDA,
R/AT IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
26. SRI VENKAT RAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
S/O SRINIVASA C.V.
NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
R/AT IMMDIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560066.
27. SRI RAJANNA.K
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O KENCHAPPA,
R/AT LAKKUR,
MALURU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTICT-563 101
28. SRI ANNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O RAMAIAH,
6
KANNAMANGALA,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST-560 025
29. SRI VIJAY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
S/O KANDASWAMY,
R/AT GANDHIPURAM,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
30. SRI ASHOKA.N
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O NAGAPPA,
R/AT NEAR DHARMASWAMY TEMPLE,
NEAR GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL,
VARTHUR,
BANGALORE EAST-560 025
31. SRI VIJAY BHASKAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT GANDHIPURAM,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
32. SRI NAGARAJ.N
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
R/AT HAGADUR,
IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
33. SRI SRINIVASA.N
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAPPA,
VARTHUS POST, MADURANGAR,
BANGALORE EAST-560 066
34. SRI RAMESH.S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
LAKKUR,MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT
7
35. SRI S.SATHISH BABU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
S/O MARIYAPPA,
BODANAHOSAHALLI,
SOMETANAHALLI POST,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE EAST-560 066
36. SRI MURALI.B
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
C/O RYAN INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
NEAR PATC,NITTE ENGG.COLLEGE ROAD,
BAGALURU CROSS,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-563 101
37. SRI MUNIKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O K M PAPANNA,
GARUDACHARPALYA,
BANGALORE-560 048
38. SRI SURESH.R
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
39. SRI RAMESH.M
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O MUNISWAMY,
R/AT IMMADIHALLI,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
40. SRI NARAYANASWAMY.M
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA,
PANATTUR,MARATHHALLI,
BANGALORE-560 087
8
41. SRI RAMESH RAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
S/O VENKATA RAJU,
R/AT GANGAMAM STREET,
RAJAPALYA,
HOODI POST,
BANGALORE-560 048
42. SRI PHILOMINA RAJ
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O ANTONY RAJ,
R/AT GREEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL,
GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR
BANGALORE-560 066
43. SRI MADAPPA T.D.
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
S/O PAPANNA,
VINAYAKANAGAR,
HAGADUR,WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
44. SRI SAMPATHKUMAR
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
S/O LOKANATH,
R/AT GANDHIPURAM,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
45. SRI NARAYANASWAMY.P
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
S/O PAPANNA,
VINAYAKANAGAR,
HAGADUR,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
46. SRI MALLIKARJUNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
S/O APPIAAHNNA,
NEAR GOVT.HIGH SCHOOL,
IMMIDIHALLI POST,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066
9
47. SRI KIRAN.L
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LAZAR,
R/AT NO.11,MAIN ROAD,
GANDHIPURAM,
WHITEFIELD POST,
BANGALORE-560 066. ...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI.MUKKANNAPPA.S.B, ADV.)
AND:
SRI NARAYANA HEGDE
MANAGER,
THE MANAGEMENT OF RYAN,
INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL,
BEHIND HINDUSTAN LEVER LTD.,
OPP.TO ACES LAYOUT,
KUNDALAHALLI,
M.H. COLONY,
BANGALORE-560 037. ...ACCUSED
(BY SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, AGA.)
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING TO INITIATE
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR
HAVING NOT COMPLIED WITH THE TIME BOUND DIRECTIONS
ISSUED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION
NO.33337/16 C/W NOS.33306/2016, WRIT PETITION
NOS.33309 TO 33336/2016, W.P.NO.33338 TO 33354/2016
ORDER DATED 21.09.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THESE CONTEMPTS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JAYANT PATEL, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
10
ORDER
The basis for the present cases under the Contempt of Courts Act is the alleged breach and non- compliance to the Order dated 21.09.2016 in Writ Petition Nos.33337/2016 and connected matters, so far as it relates to payment of 50% back wages to the Complainants herein.
2. We have heard Mr. Mukkannappa S.B., learned Counsel appearing for the Complainants and Mr. H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for the Accused.
3. We may, at the outset, record that when this matter was heard earlier on 12.06.2017, the following order was passed:
"Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, the accused is present and the Demand Draft bearing No.019378 of `.75,00,000/- dated 12.06.2017 drawn on Bank of India, AECS Layout Branch, in the 11 name of the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, is also tendered with the memo.
2. Mr.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the accused states that some time may be given to enable the accused to make arrangement for the rest of the amount and he will also come out with the stand of the accused for reinstatement of the workmen concerned.
3. Whereas, Mr.S.B.Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the complainants states that the amount which is being deposited may be permitted to be withdrawn by the complainants. He tenders the copy of the statement of calculation of the respective complainants and as per the said calculation, the total amount of wages being 50% comes to `.1,67,53,000/- out of which, `.1,32,05,500/- is the wages of drivers and `.35,47,500/- is towards wages of the conductors. Said statement is taken on record. If the proportion of the statement of wages claimed is broadly considered, 2/3rd of 12 the amount is to be shared by the complainants-drivers, whereas, the rest 1/3rd of the amount is to be shared by the complainants-conductors. As the amount of `.75,00,000/- has been deposited, in our view `.50,00,000/- can be considered for withdrawal of complainants-drivers and `.25,00,000/- can be considered for complainants-conductors.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances, the disbursement can be considered on lumpsum amount subject to final calculation as may be made and accepted by the Court. Further for the purpose of disbursement, the learned counsel for the complainants shall give the details of the bank account of the respective complainants in order to ensure that in future there is no dispute of identity and the amount goes to the account of complainant-workman concerned.
5. Hence, the following:13
ORDER
(i) The office shall encash the demand draft of `.75,00,000/-
tendered with the memo of the accused.
(ii) Out of the amount of
`.75,00,000/- each of the
complainants-drivers whose
names are mentioned in the list
comprising of 34 persons shall
disburse the amount of
`.1,45,000/- by account payee
cheque, after the details are given of the respective bank account of respective complainants-drivers.
(iii) Further each of the complainants-
conductors, whose names are mentioned on Page No.2 of the list and who are 15 in numbers shall be disbursed the amount of `.1,50,000/- by account payee cheque, after the details are given of the bank account of the 14 respective complainants-
conductors.
Let the matter be listed on 28.06.2017, with the further observation that on the next date, the accused shall come out with the proposal or mode or manner of offering reinstatement into service and he shall also bring demand draft of `.30,00,000/- towards backwages.
It would be open to the accused to submit detail calculation of the backwages after considering the statement submitted by the complainants."
4. Thereafter, the matter was again considered and on 28.06.2017, the following order was passed:
Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, the learned Counsel for the Accused has submitted a Demand Draft bearing No.019446 of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) dated 27.06.2017 drawn on Bank of India, AECS Layout Branch in the name of the Registrar General, High 15 Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru along with the memo of calculation.
As per the learned Counsel, the amount of calculation would come to around Rs.1,26,54,160/- (Rupees One Crore Twenty- six Lakhs Fifty-four Thousand One Hundred and sixty only) and then also, the total amount deposited is Rs.1,05,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Five lakhs only) including the present draft of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty lakhs only) and the balance would remain of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) to be deposited.
Mr.H.C.Shivaramu, learned Counsel for the Accused, under the instructions of the Accused who is stated to be present before the Court, states that the Demand Draft of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs only) shall be deposited with this Court if four weeks time is granted. He further states that as per the last order, the Accused had to come out with the proposal of reinstatement but the same has not been done and he seeks time to submit the proposal.16
As has been noticed, the monthly salary is approximately Rs.5,00,000/- of the 47 persons who are shown in the list. As the reinstatement has not been effected in any case the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards wages will be required to be deposited. Thereafter, if the reinstatement is effected, there may not be any liability of regular wages but in lieu of reinstatement; regular wages will be available to the Complainants- workmen.
Hence, the Accused shall bring the Demand Draft of Rs.25,00,000/- towards arrears and wages for the month of June 2017 and shall also submit a detailed proposal for the reinstatement of 47 workmen.
The office shall encash the Demand Draft and shall also disburse the amount in the same proportion as ordered by this Court in the ratio of 2:1 and on compliance of the same terms and conditions as ordered earlier vide order dated 12.06.2017.
Put up the matters on 26.07.2017."17
5. Today, Mr. H.C. Shivaramu, learned Counsel appearing for the Accused has tendered a memo with demand draft of Rs.20,00,000/- of Bank of India dated 25.07.2017 in the name of Registrar of High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. Office to encash the said demand draft.
6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for both the sides that the total payment including the demand draft herein towards arrears of wages would be Rs.1,25,00,000/- and therefore payment of Rs.5,00,000/- which was earlier ordered by this Court towards the wages for the subsequent month may be deferred. It was also submitted that there is difference in the calculation of the amount, in as much as, as per the Complainants, the amount recoverable is Rs.1,67,53,000/- whereas as per the calculation made by the Accused, it is of Rs.1,26,54,160/-. As per the Accused, out of the aforesaid amount of 18 Rs.1,26,54,160/-, Rs.1,25,00,000/- is already deposited and therefore for the remaining amount, let the Complainants agitate the said aspect before the Labour Court and even on the aspects of reinstatement, it was submitted that talks of settlement are going on and the parties may be permitted to agitate the said issue before the appropriate Forum in the event the settlement is not finalized.
7. The learned Counsel for the Complainants submitted that the Complainants have no objections for such course being adopted for agitating the remaining outstanding wages before the Labour Court and for agitating the aspects of reinstatement in the event settlement is not finalized.
8. However, the learned Counsel for the Complainants submitted that since earlier the distribution of the amount was on adhoc basis, now it 19 may be made proportionately since the full amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- is already distributed.
9. In our view, when both the parties are agreeable for pursuing the remedy of recovery of the balance amount in the proceedings of the Labour Court, and when both the parties are agreeable to pursue the matter for settlement and in the event the settlement is not arrived at before the appropriate Forum, for reinstatement, such course can be permitted to be agitated. Hence, subject to the aforesaid observations, the present proceedings may not be required to be continued further, so far as alleged breach is concerned.
10. However, on the aspects of disbursement, it appears that initially the amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was deposited and thereafter Rs.30,00,000/- and today Rs.20,00,000/- so total amount deposited would be Rs.1,25,00,000/-. If the proportion of the calculation made even as per the Complainants is considered, the 20 drivers were to claim about Rs.1.32 Crores whereas the conductors were to claim Rs.35 lakhs. That is how, total would be Rs.1.67 Crores. It is true that initially, the distribution of the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,00,000/- was on adhoc basis as per the order dated 12.06.2017, but it has been reported that thereafter the amount deposited of Rs.30,00,000/- as per the order dated 28.06.2017 is until now not disbursed because of the late realization of the demand draft. Hence, we find that even if the amount is to be distributed finally, it should be in proportion to the claim of the wages by the respective workers namely the drivers and the conductors as the case may be. If the broad proportion is considered, 21% of the amount will be required to be distributed amongst the conductors whereas 79% of the amount would be required to be considered for distribution to the drivers. If the total amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- is taken as the basis, the drivers will be required to be distributed the amount of 21 Rs.98,75,000/- whereas the conductors would be required to be distributed amount of Rs.26,25,000/-. But, while finding out the net amount available, the amount already distributed earlier as per the order dated 12.06.2017 would be required to be deducted and the remaining amount will be required to be disbursed amongst the drivers and/or the conductors as the case may be. Since as per the earlier order, Rs.49,30,000/- were already permitted to be disbursed amongst the drivers, now the drivers would be required to be distributed the amount of Rs.49,45,000/-. Since earlier the conductors were already distributed amount of Rs.22,50,000/-, now required to be distributed Rs.3,75,000/-, but all in equal proportion to the conductors or drivers as the case may be.
11. Hence, office to disburse the amount by account payee cheque after details are given to the bank account of the respective Complainants/drivers or conductors as the case may be. As per the aforesaid 22 calculation, each conductor will now get amount of Rs.25,000/- who are 15 in numbers, whereas each driver would get the amount of Rs.1,45,044/- who are 34 in numbers. After disbursement of the aforesaid amount, if any balance remains, the same shall be transferred in the proceedings of the Principal Labour Court, Bengaluru for its appropriation in the disputes which are already pending before the Labour Court, in accordance with law.
12. The proceedings stand disposed of in terms of aforesaid observations and directions accordingly.
13. In view of disposal of the proceedings, I.A.No.1/2017 would not survive for consideration and hence shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-