Karnataka High Court
Prasanna H S vs Smt. Ghowsia Williams on 6 April, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
CCC No.1651 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1651 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. PRASANNA H S
S/O. SRI. SRIPATHY,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER,
FITTER TRADE,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051,
RESIDING AT NO.8, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN,
80 FEET ROAD, SUBBAIAHNAPALYA, BANGALORE-33.
2. SRI VINAY M S
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN
N
S/O. LATE SUBBANNA M S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER,
THE TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051,
R/AT MUTHUR VILLAGE, MALLUR POST,
SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA
DISTRICT-562102.
3. PRASANNA R
S/O. SRI. KAMATAR R H
-2-
CCC No.1651 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PRINCIPAL,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051,
RESIDING AT NO.33/1, 5TH MAIN ROAD, PALACE
GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE-03.
4. RAMESH B
S/O. SRI. BASAVARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER,
WORKSHOP, CALCULATION AND SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING, DRAWING, TECHNICAL TRAINING
CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051,
RESIDING AT NO.355, SURABHI, SUBRAMANYA
REDDY BUILDING, 8TH CROSS, 2ND PHASE, HMT
MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE, BANGALORE-54.
5. SMT SAVITHA K
W/O. S. VENKATARAGHAVAN,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER,
ELECTRONICS MECHANICS
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560051,
RESIDING AT NO.306, LAKSHMI NILAYA, FLAT
NO.101, 60 FEET ROAD, TALAKAVERI LAYOUT,
SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-93.
6. SHANTHAKUMAR M S
S/O. SRI AKULAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
-3-
CCC No.1651 of 2019
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER, TURNER TRADE,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560051,
AND RESIDING AT R/A MUTHUR VILLAGE,
MALLUR POST, SHIDLAGHATTA TALUK,
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562102.
7. ANJANAPPA C M
S/O. SRI MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
JUNIOR TRAINING OFFICER, FITTER TRADE,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051.
8. RAGHAVENDRA M
S/O. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OFFICE SUPERINTENDANT,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051,
RESIDING AT NO.157, 7TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
BSK II STAGE, KAVERI NAGAR, BANGALORE-70.
9. AMARANTH R
S/O. SRI RAMEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKSHOP ATTENDER,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560051.
10. ANTHONIYAMMA
W/O. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
-4-
CCC No.1651 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
GROUP-D EMPLOYEE,
TECHNICAL TRAINING CENTER FOR DEAF,
NO.28/2, HAINES ROAD,
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560051.
...COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. GHOWSIA WILLIAMS
THE MANAGING TRUSTEE
REACH OUT EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT TRUST FOR
DISABLED UNDER PRIVILEGED WOMEN AND
CHILDREN
NO 28/2 HAINES ROAD
NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD
BANGALORE 560051
...ACCUSED
(BY SRI. S.K. RAVI, ADVOCATE)
CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 & 12 OF THE
CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, BY THE COMPLAINANT, WHEREIN
HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO
INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED
FOR DELIBERATE AND INTENTIONAL DISOBEDIENCE OF THE
ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT MADE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.9593-9603/2019 DATED 22.07.2019 PRODUCED AS PER
ANNEXURE-B AND PUNISH THE ACCUSED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.POST CCC BEFORE DIVISION BENCH FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, B. VEERAPPA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-5-
CCC No.1651 of 2019
ORDER
Complainant filed the present contempt petition under the provisions of Section 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the accused for willful and deliberate disobedience of the interim order dated 27th February, 2019 made in Writ petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 (Annexure-B), wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court passed the Interim Order as under:
"Smt. Ghousia William, Managing Trustee of 5 th respondent is present in the Court. Pursuant to the order dated 11.07.2019, she has expressed difficulty in making certain payment of salary to the petitioners, on the score petitioners were stated to have been remained absent from August, 2018, for which no action has been taken to place the petitioners under suspension or initiate disciplinary proceedings. In the absence of the aforesaid action, denial of salary to the petitioners is warranted. Therefore, the 5th respondent is hereby directed to pay arrears of salary to the petitioners from August 2018 till today.
If there is any dispute between the 5th respondent and the Government in respect of collection of grant-in- aid, such procedure shall be undertaken by the 5 th respondent with the Government. Necessary arrangement shall be made for payment of arrears of salary to the petitioners.-6- CCC No.1651 of 2019
For the time being, 5th respondent has to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from today, failing which, petitioners are entitled to interest on arrears of salary at the rate of 6% p.a."
2. Since the accused has not complied with the order of the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single Judge directed the accused to pay arrears of salary to the complainant from 2018 till the date of order, i.e. 22nd July, 2019, the contempt petition came to be filed on 22nd September, 2019. Subsequently, on 19th December, 2019, the learned Single Judge, on the concession of the accused that as per memo dated 19th December, 2019, 50% would be paid, was accepted and that is also not paid. Subsequently, application that was filed for vacating the interim order also came to be rejected on 06th September, 2021. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the accused has not denied the violation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the affidavit dated 15th March, 2021, she has specifically stated as under:
"5. I state that, the Technical Training Centre for the Deaf Bangalore is an institution run by the Association of the Deaf, Bangalore with the grant-in-aid -7- CCC No.1651 of 2019 from the State Government with respect to the salaries payable to the teaching and non-teaching staff.
6. I state that, the complainant Nos.1 to 8 have not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hand and further they have suppressed many material facts which have led to non-payment of their salaries which I wish to bring to record along with the necessary document in support of the same.
7. I state that, subsequent to the interim order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.9593-9603 of 2019 dated 22.7.2019, I made a representation to the Directorate of Industrial Training and Employment requesting them to release the salaries of the complainants except the salaries of complainant Nos.2 and 3. Insofar as the complainant No.3 was concerned request was not made to the Directorate since he had not handed over the records and other assets to the Association. Copy of the letter dated 14.10.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Document No.1. Further, I wish to state that the salary of the complainant No.2 was not requested in view of the pendency fo the criminal case against him in CC No.55437 of 2017 filed by one Smt. B.S. Bharathi before the Court of 11th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore. Copy of the letter dated 25.10.2019 issued by the Trust seeking explanation from complainant No.2 is produced herewith and marked as Document No.2.-8- CCC No.1651 of 2019
8. I state that, the management has already made a request to the Directorate in pursuant to the correspondence of the Department of Training and Employment, the Secretary to the Government of Karnataka of the concern Department has directed to release the salary vide its letter dated 9.9.2019. Copies of the communications made between the departments dated 19.7.2019 and 9.9.2019 is produced herewith and marked as Document No.3 and 4 respectively."
3. At this stage, it is also relevant to state that, against the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No.1270 of 2021 came to be filed, said appeal also came to be dismissed for default on 28th September, 2022. Since the order of the learned Single Judge not complied with, this Court, on 16th February, 2022, passed a detailed order holding that it is a fit case to frame the charge for violation of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The said order passed by this Court has reached finality. Accordingly, this Court framed the charge against the accused and plea recorded on 16 th February, 2022. The same reads as under:
"CHARGE We, Justice B.Veerappa and Justice M.G.Uma, Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru do hereby charge you, accused named below:-9- CCC No.1651 of 2019
SMT.GHOWSIA WILLIAMS THE MANAGING TRUSTEE, REACH OUT EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYMENT TRUST FOR DISABLED UNDER PRIVILEGED WOMEN AND CHILDREN, No.28/2, HAINES RAOD, NEW BAMBOO BAZAR ROAD, BANGALORE- 560051.
as follows:-
That you, the Accused being the Managing Trustee of Reach Out Educational Employment Trust for Disabled Under Privileged Women and Children has deliberately and willfully disobeyed the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.9593- 9603/2019 dated 22.07.2019; in not paying the arrears of salary to the petitioners/complainants from August- 2018 till date in spite of the opportunity given to comply with the same. Thereby, you have committed civil contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court.
Dated this the 16th day of February, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
Judge Judge
PLEA
Question: Have you heard the charge now read over
and explained to you?
Answer : Yes
- 10 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019
Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any
defence to make?
Answer : Pleaded not guilty. I have defence to make.
We Justice B. Veerappa and Justice M.G.Uma, hereby certify that the above charge was read over and explained to the accused in the language known to her in our presence and hearing and that the above is the true and correct answer given by the accused on this day the 16th February, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
Judge Judge
4. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant, complainant examined as CW1. Reiterating averments made in the contempt petition, the complainant deposed that from August 2018, salary was not dispersed mainly on the ground that the complainants were not working and Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited is going to acquire the property where the accused Institution was situated and thereafter, this Court, on the writ petition filed by him in Writ petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 granted interim order on 11th July, 2019 directing respondent No.5-accused Managing Trustee to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner-complainants, failing which, accused shall be present before the Court on the next date. On 22nd September, 2019, the accused was present before the Court
- 11 -CCC No.1651 of 2019
and the learned Single Judge of this Court, directed to make arrangement for payment of arrears of salary from August, 2018 to 22nd July, 2019 within a period of two weeks, failing which the complainants are entitled for interest on the arrears of salary at the rate of 6% per annum. According to the complainant, as per Interim Order granted by the learned Single Judge, the complainants, in all, are entitled for arrears of salary to an extent of Rs.80,00,000/- with interest. It is also further contended that application filed for vacating the interim order, came to be rejected and the writ appeal filed also came to be dismissed for default. The Managing Trustee filed an undertaking before the learned Single Judge on 19th December, 2019 undertaking to pay salary to the petitioner-complainants, before 15th February, 2020, thereby the application for vacating interim order came to be rejected. Therefore, he sought to initiate contempt proceedings. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve the oral testimony of the complainant.
5. In Re-examination, it is stated by CW1 that the present accused is liable to pay the salary to the complainants and in the order dated 22nd July, 2019, there is no direction to
- 12 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019the Government to pay salary and hence, direction is only against the present accused.
6. In order to disprove the case of the complainant, the accused examined himself as DW1 and she has categorically admitted that the institution run by her was receiving grant-in- aid from the Government from 2000-2001 till today. However, she has contended that it is not the responsibility of the Management- to pay the salary to the complainants and it is for the Government to pay the salary.
7. DW1, in her examination-in-chief, further stated that, she addressed a letter to the State Government to stop the grant-in-aid temporarily to all the complainants, as the complainants were not working. Taking up of the property by BMRCL is one of the reasons for not paying the salary to the petitioner-complainants as working condition of the institution become stalled. She has not disputed the fact that the complainants had filed Writ Petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 for a direction to the accused to pay arrears of salary and the learned Single Judge by way of the Interim Order dated 11 th July, 2019, directed her to pay arrears of salary to the
- 13 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019complainants and it is also true that if she fails to pay the amount, this Court directed her to be present before the Court on 27th September, 2019 and thereafter, she has written letters to the Government requesting for grant-in-aid in favour of the complainants. It is further stated that the Commission issued instructions to the concerned Officers of the Government who, in turn, inspected the Institutions but only few of them have been recommended for grant-in-aid and remaining have not been recommended for grant-in-aid as per document 6. According to DW1, 50-75% of the salary has been paid to three persons and she made all efforts to solve the dispute with the complainants. She further stated that, she made efforts to solve the dispute with the complainants with regard to payment of salary during the pendency of contempt proceedings and she is waiting for the compensation amount from the BMRCL to pay salary to the complainants. She made all efforts to implement the order of the learned Single Judge. Thereby, she has not violated the order of the learned Single Judge and sought to dismiss the contempt petition.
8. In the cross-examination, accused admitted that she is Managing Trustee of respondent No.5. She also admitted
- 14 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019that the learned Single Judge by the order dated 11th July, 2019, directed respondent No.5-Managing Trustee to pay arrears of the salary to the petitioner/complainants in compliance of the Order passed by this Court dated 11th July, 2019 and the interim order dated 22ndJuly, 2019 directing the Government to pay salary to the petitioners/complainants. It is further admitted in the cross-examination by DW1-accused that two interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11th July, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019, she is liable to pay salary to the petitioner/complainants. She further stated that, her Advocate might have filed an undertaking dated 19th December, 2019, after the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. She is not aware of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 2020 made in Writ petition Nos.9593-9603 of 2019 directing her to pay 50% of the total arrears of salary to the petitioners/complainants on or before 05th March, 2020. She further admitted in the cross- examination that after two interim Orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 11th July, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019, they have filed an application for vacating the interim order and that application came to be dismissed, in view of the
- 15 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019undertaking given by her dated 19th December, 2019, as per the order dated 06th September, 2021. She further stated that, after inspection she has paid 50-75% salary to three employees and she has not paid any salary to the remaining employees and complainants/petitioners. In the cross- examination it is categorically admitted that, she is liable to pay salary from August, 2018 till 22ndJuly, 2019. However, she denied that she is liable to pay an arrears of salary to the petitioner/claimants up to 04th October, 2019." She further stated that though she has filed writ appeal No.1270 of 2021, there is no interim order in the said appeal.
9. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.
10. Sri Subramanya Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the complainants, reiterating the averments made in the complaint, would contend that the interim order dated 22nd July, 2019 granted by this Court in writ petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 directing the accused to pay arrears of salary to the complainants from August 2018 till the date of the order i.e. on 22nd July, 2019, is not disputed. Though Writ Appeal No.1270
- 16 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019of 2021 came to be filed against the said interim order, the same came to be dismissed for default on 28th September, 2022. He would further contend that in the modified order dated 19th December, 2019, on the undertaking given by the accused that 50% of the salary would be paid the same was accepted and memo came to be filed on 19th December, 2019. He would further contend that though an application came to be filed for vacating the interim order, the same came to be rejected on 06th September, 2020 in view of the undertaking given by the accused. DW1, in her Cross-examination dated 28th June, 2022, admitted that she is liable to pay salary from August 2018 till 22 ndSeptember, 2019. In view of the affidavit of the complainants dated 23rd June, 2021, he invited the attention of the Court to (Annexure-K) dated 27th October, 2018, the communication made to the Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training, Kaushalya Bhavan, Bengaluru to suspend the salary of all the staff of TTCC (ITI), Bangalore with effect from August, 2018 until further information. Thereby, it is a clear case of contempt as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 2(b) of the
- 17 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, he sought to allow the contempt petition and punish the accused.
11. Per contra, Sri S.K. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the accused relying upon the affidavit dated 15th March, 2021, specifically contended that the Technical Training Centre for the Deaf, Bangalore which is an institution run by the Association of the Deaf, receive grant-in-aid from the State Government with respect to salary payable to teaching and non-teaching staff. He would further contend that complainants No.1 to 8 have not approached this Court with clean hands and they have suppressed material facts which has led to non-payment of the salary. It is further contended that subsequent to the interim order passed by this Court, on 22 nd July, 2019, the accused made representation to the Directorate of Industrial Training and Employment requesting to release the salary of complainants, except the salary of complainants 2 and 3. Insofar as complainant No.3 is concerned, request was not made to the Directorate since he has not handed over the records and other assets to the Association. It is further contended that the Inspection Report along with recommendation submitted by the Joint Director (Training), to
- 18 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019the Chief Commissioner, Directorate of Employment and Training on 04th October, 2019, only three staff are eligible for release of salary and the salaries of other staff was withheld and one staff has resigned. He would further contend that the Interim Order dated 22nd July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is not in dispute. Application for vacating the Interim Order also disposed of on 06th September, 2021 as per Exhibit C1. Thereby, there is no wilful disobedience of the order of the learned Single Judge as contended and therefore, sought to dismiss the contempt petition.
12. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration is:
"Whether the complainants have made out a case to initiate contempt proceedings and punish the accused as per the provisions of Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience of the interim order made in Writ Petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019, directing the accused to pay arrears of salary to the complainants from
- 19 -CCC No.1651 of 2019
August 2018 till the date of the order i.e. 22nd July, 2019?
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully. It is the specific case of complainants that in spite of the Interim Order dated 22nd July, 2019 made by learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 directing the accused to pay the salary to the complainants from August 2018 till the date of the order i.e. 22nd July, 2019, the same is not paid. Subsequently, having regard to the facts and circumstances, without prejudice to the earlier order, on 19th December, 2019, respondent No.5-the present accused, was directed to pay 50% of total arrears of salary liable to be paid to the petitioners/employees on or before 05th March, 2020. The balance outstanding amount shall be paid by the accused within a period of four weeks thereafter, failing which, the petitioners are at liberty to proceed with contempt proceedings pending before the contempt court. Subsequently, on 19th December, 2019, respondent-accused given an undertaking before this Court to pay salary to the employees on or before 05th March,
- 20 -
CCC No.1651 of 20192020. The order sheet dated 19th February, 2020 further reveal that the respondents-accused were further directed to pay the balance outstanding within a period of four weeks. Admittedly, the said order also not complied with by the accused. It is also not in dispute that the application filed for vacating of the interim order, came to be rejected by the learned Single Judge by order dated 06th September, 2021, in view of the undertaking given by the accused. The interim order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2019 rejecting vacating the interim order, has reached finality. In the entire counter, the accused has not denied the violation of Interim Order as alleged by the complainants. It is also not in dispute that Writ Appeal No.1270 of 2021 filed by the accused against the interim order dated 22nd July, 2019 came to be dismissed for default on 28th September, 2022 and till today, the said order is not recalled. The evidence of complainant clearly depicts that the accused had willfully disobeyed the order dated 11th July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge directing the present accused-Managing Trustee to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner-complainant, failing which the accused shall be present before this Court. The accused,
- 21 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019appeared before this Court on 22nd July, 2019 and agreed to pay the arrears of salary within a period of two weeks. It is also not in dispute that on 19 th December, 2019, an undertaking came to be filed before this Court by the accused, and in view of the memo filed by the accused, the application filed for vacating the interim order came to be rejected on 06th September, 2021, as per Exhibit C1. The said undertaking also has not been complied with. Nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the averments made in examination-in-chief by CW1. Though, the accused has admitted that the Institution was getting grant-in-aid from the Government from 2000-2001, but has stated that, she has given letter to the Department to stop grant-in-aid temporarily in respect of all the complainants as they were not working. It is further admitted that, the complainants filed Writ Petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 and this Court, by order dated 11th July, 2019 directed the accused to pay arrears of salary to complainants", and also admits that she failed to pay the amount. She further admitted that the Court directed her to be present before the Court on 22nd July, 2019 and thereafter, she made a request to the Government to direct the Commissioner to release grant-in-aid to the present
- 22 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019complainants on 09th September, 2019. It is further stated by her that she made all efforts to implement the order of the learned Single Judge, thereby she has not violated the order. But very strangely, in her cross-examination, it is admitted by the accused as under:
"I am the 5th respondent-Managing Trustee in the writ petition filed by the present complainants in Writ Petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019. It is true that the learned Single Judge, by order dated 11th July, 2019 directed the 5th respondent-Managing Trustee to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioners. It is true that two interim orders are passed by the learned Single Judge on 11 th July, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019; I am liable to pay the salary to the complainants."
14. She further admits that her advocate might have filed an undertaking before the Court on 19th December, 2019, after the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge and she is not aware of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19th February, 2020 directing her to pay 50% of total arrears of salary to complainants on or before 05th March, 2020. She also admitted that after two interim orders passed by the
- 23 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019learned Single Judge, dated 11th July, 2019 and 22nd July, 2019, she has filed application for vacating the interim order. The said application came to be rejected in view of the undertaking given by her on 19th September, 2019. It is admitted that, as per the order dated 06th September, 2021, after inspection report, she has paid 50-75% of the salary of three employees and she has not paid salary to remaining employees. She admits that she know the inspection report of November, 2019. In her cross-examination, in categorical terms she admitted that she is liable to pay the salary from August, 2018 till the date of order of the learned Single Judge dated 22nd July, 2019. In view of the categorical admission made by DW1 admitting the interim order passed against her, so also, violation made by the accused, it is not case of the accused that she has paid the entire arrears of salary due to the complainants as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the absence of the same, there is a clear violation of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as undertaking dated 19th December, 2019 given before this Court by the accused, thereby the accused is liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
- 24 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the civil contempt in the case of RAMA NARANG v. RAMESH NARANG AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)16 SCC 126, at paragraph 47 and 51 to 53, held as under:
"47. The critical analysis of the decided cases of this Court clearly leads to the conclusion that willful breach of an undertaking given to the Court amounts to contempt of court under Section 2(b) of the Act.
48 to 50 xxx xxx xxx
51. In order to maintain sanctity of the orders of the highest court of the country, it has become imperative that those who are guilty of deliberately disregarding the orders of the court in a clandestine manner should be appropriately punished. The majesty of the court and the rule of law can never be maintained unless this Court ensures meticulous compliance with its orders.
52. We have carefully perused the undertaking given by the parties to the Court and orders of this Court dated 12.12.2001 and 8.1.2002 based on the undertaking of the parties given to this Court and other relevant facts and circumstances. According to our considered view the respondents are clearly guilty of committing contempt of court by deliberate and willful disobedience of the undertaking given by them to this Court. In this view of the matter, in order to maintain sanctity of the orders of this Court, the respondents
- 25 -CCC No.1651 of 2019
must receive appropriate punishment for deliberately flouting the orders of this Court.
53. Consequently, we convict the respondents under Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, and sentence them to a simple imprisonment for a period of two months. We further impose a fine of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited by each of them within one week failing which they shall undergo imprisonment for one month."
16. Learned counsel for the accused Sri S.K. Ravi, relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SMT.PUSHPABEN & ANOTHER v. NARANDAS V. BADIANI & ANR reported in (1979)2 SCC 394, wherein while relying upon the provisions of Section 12(3) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, observed that normally a sentence shall be given to an offender found guilty of civil contempt is fine and not imprisonment, which should be given only where the Court is satisfied that ends of justice require the imposition of such a sentence. Admittedly, in the present case, when the Interim Order granted by this Court on 22nd July, 2019 and modified order was passed on 19th December, 2019 directing the accused to pay the arrears of salary in compliance of the order from August, 2018 till the date of order, i.e. 22nd July, 2019, the accused has not paid the salary in violation of the interim order
- 26 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019as admitted by DW1 in her cross-examination and the application came to be filed by her for vacating the interim order came to be rejected on 06th September, 2021 and the appeal filed by her in Writ Appeal No.1270 of 2021 also came to be dismissed for default. This a clear case of admission of wilful disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court as well as undertaking given before the Court. Thereby, the judgment relied upon by the accused has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. Another judgment replied upon by the learned counsel for the accused in the case of GYANICHAND v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH reported in (2016)15 SCC 164, to the effect that though an undertaking given to the Court that he would produce written documents whenever directed, but is unable to produce the same due to reasons beyond his control is concerned, that was a case where the documents handed over to by the appellant to his mother, who rightly was the owner of the said documents and the said fact was admitted by his mother by filing an affidavit in another legal proceedings. Subsequently, the said documents had been destroyed because of the flood and therefore, it was impossible for the appellant to
- 27 -
CCC No.1651 of 2019return the same to the Court. The facts of the said case are entirely different from the facts of the case on hand. Admittedly, the accused in the present case admitted the wilful disobedience of the interim order passed by this Court and the undertaking given to the Court, as admitted by her in the cross-examination. Thereby, the said judgment too has no application to the facts of the present case.
18. For the reasons stated above, the point that arose in the present petition is answered in the affirmative holding that the complainant has made out a case to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused for the wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 22nd July, 2019 made in Writ Petitions No.9593-9603 of 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge Thereby the accused is liable to be punished. In view of the above, we pass the following:
ORDER
i) Contempt petition is allowed in part;
ii) Accused is liable to be convicted under the provisions Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience of the interim order dated 22nd July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petitions
- 28 -CCC No.1651 of 2019
No.9593-9603 of 2019 for a period of three months with fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to pay the fine, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of fifteen days.
iii) The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to prepare a
warrant of commitment and detention in
respect of the accused-contemnor in Form No.III as contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, forthwith.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the accused filed application for suspension of sentence. The same is placed on record. In view of Right of Appeal to the accused under the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the sentence is suspended for a period of four weeks from the date of commencement of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE LNN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20