- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2254-DB CCC No. 100316 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 100316 OF 2024 BETWEEN: RATNAKAR S/O. ANAND SHETTY AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: NIL, C/O. PUSHPA RAMAKRISHNA SHETTY R/O. SIRIDEVI NILAYA HCS ROAD TQ: SIRSI, DIST: KARWAR-581401 …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DR. AJAY NAGABHUSHAN M N, THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSBANDARY AND FISHERIES, 405, IV FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. MS. SHREEROOPA THE COMMISSIONER, DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSB AND VETY. SERVICES, 1ST FLOOR, PASHUPALANA BHAVANA, OPP TO CBI OFFICE, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024 3. DR. MANJUNATH S. PALEGAR, THE DIRECTOR, DEPT. OF ANIMAL HUSB AND VETY. Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2254-DB CCC No. 100316 of 2024 SERVICES, 1ST FLOOR, PASHUPALANA BHAVANA, OPP TO CBI OFFICE, BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL, BENGALURU-560024 4. DR. K.M. MOHAN KUMAR, DEPT OF ANIMAL HUSB AND VETY SERVICES, KARWAR, TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581301 5. DINESH M. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF VETERINARY VETERINERY HOSPITAL, SIRSI, TQ: SIRSI, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA-581401 [NOTE: NAME OF R.G.HEGDE DELETED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.11.2024.] 6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGLORE.01 …ACCUSED (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 AND PROFORMA R6; SRI. VAGEESH R. HEGDE AND SRI. VINAYAK B. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED NO. 5) THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER SECTION 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W. ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA,1950, PLEASED TO, PUNISH THE ACCUSED FOR VIOLATION THE ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.103378/2022 DATED 03.06.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE PRESENT CONTEMPT PETITION AND ETC. THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, COURT MADE THE ORDER THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2254-DB CCC No. 100316 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The petitioner’s writ petition in W.P.No.103378/2022 is partly allowed by the order dated 03.06.2024 and the Writ Court’s order in this regard reads as under:- “The petition is partly allowed and respondents Nos.2 & 4 are directed to consider the entitlement of the petitioner of his payment of wages from 11.01.2011 till his retirement in accordance with law. Such consideration shall be made within a period or twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” Sri Girish V. Bhat, the learned counsel for the complainant, submits that the computation referred to in the compliance affidavit filed will not be in compliance with the directions because it does not relate to the period from 11.01.2011, Sri Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, relies upon the paragraph 5 of the affidavit which reads as under:- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2254-DB CCC No. 100316 of 2024 “ I respectfully submit that, the Labour Court passed an order dated 11.01.2011 in KID No.47/2010 and the same was challenged by the state government by filing Writ Petition No.66438/2011. In the said Writ Petition this Hon’ble Court granted an interim order dated 03.01.2013 thereby stayed execution and operation of Order dated 11.01.2011 and the said interim order was continued till 21.08.2019. Vide order dated 21.08.2019 the petition filed by the state was dismissed and observed that, “However the claim for wages with respect to the period during which the Order of the Labour Court has been stayed cannot be considered”. Accordingly Petition was dismissed subject to the observations made herein above. The writ Court has recorded a statement on behalf of the respondents that the complainant’s claim for wages from 11.01.2011 until his retirement would be revised considering the provisions of the Karnataka Daily Wage Employees Welfare Act, 2012, but if in the earlier proceedings, in WP No.66438/2011, the claim for wages during the period for which there was interim order as against an order for reinstatement, is held impermissible, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2254-DB CCC No. 100316 of 2024 this Court is of the considered view that any claim for payment from 11.01.2011 will have to be considered in properly instituted proceedings and there would be no reason for continuing in the present proceedings. Therefore, the complaint is closed. SD/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SD/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE VMB/ct-vg LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26