- 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: 1. MOHAMMAD YUSUF S/O BASHASAHEB KOPPAL (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.) 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, ALL ARE R/O: SAI COLONY GOUDIKERI-572216, 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) VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 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 - 6 - CCC No.100104 of 2025 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 - 7 - CCC No.100104 of 2025 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