The General Secretary Anjuman Hami E Muslimeen v. Mrs. Swetha S

Karnataka HC20 Jun 2024CCC/100072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a contempt petition alleging disobedience regarding the payment of gratuity interest. The judgment examined the respondent's assigned reasons for granting interest and found no deliberate intent to disobey, hence dropping the proceedings. Court ruled that assigning reasons suffices to comply with the prior order.

What did the court decide?

Primarily the order was not automatically filled in the decision, respondent's assigned reasons suffice to comply with the order. Appellate Authority passed order providing reasons for interest paymen

The General Secretary Anjuman Hami E Muslimeen Vs… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100072 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE GENERAL SECRETARY, ANJUMAN HAMI E MUSLIMEEN, ANJUMAN INSTITUTION OF TECHNOLOGY, ANJUMANABAD, BHATKAL-581320.

¶9

THE PRINCIPAL,

¶10

THE MANAGEMENT OF ANJUMAN INSTITUTION OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, ANJUMANABAD, BHATKAL-581320.

¶11

…COMPLAINANTS

¶12

(BY SRI Z.N. HANSI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

MRS. SWETHA S., ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, DHARWAD DIVISION, HUBBALLI-580030.

¶15

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

…ACCUSED 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, PLEASED TO, INITIATE THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED REGARDING THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.102588/2023 AND CONNECTED PETITIONS DATED 24.07.2023 AND ETC.,

¶17

THIS CCC, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S G PANDIT, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

- 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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 24.07.2023 in Writ Petition No.102588/2023 and connection writ petitions, wherein this Court had passed the following order:

¶21

“The writ petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders passed by the appellate authority are set aside and the matters are remitted to the appellate authority for fresh consideration of the appeals in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

¶22

It is needless to state that since the claim for payment of gratuity of the employees have been pending consideration for a considerable period of time, the appellate authority shall make endeavour to dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible but not later than a period to two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶23

Since the parties are represented before this Court, without awaiting for further notice, they are directed to appear before the appellate authority on 07.08.2023.”

¶24

Heard learned counsel Sri.Z.N.Hansi for the

¶25

complainants and perused the papers.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainants would submit

¶27

that this Court on setting aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration of the appeals filed under the provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶29

‘1972 Act’) in the light of the observation made during the course of the order. Learned counsel would submit that without taking note of the observation made by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Appellate Authority passed order which is placed on record at Annexures-(B to R) series all dated 07.11.2023, directing payment of balance of gratuity with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Learned counsel for the complainants would submit that interest could not have been directed to be paid in view of the observation made by this Court. Learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12 and 13 of the order under complaint and would submit that this Court had specifically observed that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in saddling the liability to pay interest on the employer though there was no fault on the part of the employer in not paying the gratuity on time. Thus, learned counsel would submit that though this Court has found fault in saddling liability to pay interest, the Appellate Authority has again directed payment of gratuity with interest. Thus, he submits that the action of the respondent-Appellate Authority is in violation of the order of this Court and it would amount to contemptuous act on the part of the respondent.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the

¶32

complainants and on perusal of the entire contempt papers, we are of the view that there is no deliberate or intentional or willful contempt as alleged by the complainants.

¶33

The complainants were before this Court in Writ Petition No.102588/2023 and connected matters challenging the order of the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority wherein complainants were directed to pay balance gratuity along with interest. While this Court remanding the matter directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals in the light of the observations made during the course of the order. Though this Court in paragraph No.11 of its order observed that the Controlling Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have erred in saddling the liability to pay interest on the employer, at paragraph No.12, this Court has observed that no enquiry is held in the case on hand and alternatively, a decision has been taken directing payment of interest from the date of the payment fell due. Further, this Court observed that neither the Controlling Authority nor the Appellate Authority have given the valid reasons for making such distinctions with regard to payment of interest to the employees of the same

¶34

- 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶35

institution who undisputedly have filed the application belatedly. In view of the observation made by this Court, the only question is as to whether the Appellate Authority has assigned any reason while directing the employer to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the balance gratuity amount?

¶36

For the purpose of finding out as to whether the Appellate Authority has assigned any reason, we have gone through one of the orders i.e.Annexure-B dated 07.11.2023 bearing No.¸ÀPÁDºÀÄ/G¥ÁPÁ/C¦Ã®Ä/¹Dgï-06/2022-23. On going

¶37

through the same, it is found that the Appellate Authority has assigned reasons as follows:

¶38

“F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è UÀªÀÄ¤¸À(ÁVgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÄRå CA±ÀªÉAzÀgÉ, ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A. 7(2) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7(3) gÀ°è£À ¥ÁæªÀzsÁ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢-1 CªÀjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÀÝ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ (ÉPÁÌZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr, CªÀjUÉ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1972gÀ ¥sÁªÀÄð ‘J(ï’ £À°è £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï£ÀÄß eÁjUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ zÁR(ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ(ÁèUÀ°Ã CxÀªÁ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ(ÁèUÀ°Ã ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ°è F »AzÉ dªÉÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. G¥ÀzÁ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝ Cr ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ CªÀgÀÄ LzÀÄ ªÀµÀðPÀÆÌ «ÄQÌ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÉ CªÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ PÉÆ£ÉUÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ PÉÆ£ÉUÉÆAqÀ 30 ¢£ÀUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV CAvÀºÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀjUÉ G¥ÀzÁ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÁAiÉÄÝ Cr ¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÁUÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¤UÀ¢vÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀzÁ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝ°è G¥ÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ(É ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 10 gÀAvÉ §rØ ºÀt ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 7(3J)gÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÁUÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G¥ÀzÁ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁ®zÀ°è ¤ÃqÀ®Ä PÁ«ÄðPÀ¤AzÁV «¼ÀA§ªÁzÀ°è ºÁUÀÆ F PÀÄjvÀÄ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ Cr ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝ°è ªÀiÁvÀæ G¥ÀzÁ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ(É §rØºÀt ¤ÃqÀ¢gÀ®Ä «£Á¬Äw¬ÄzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀ¤UÉ ¸ÀPÁ®zÀ°è G¥ÀzÁ£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ vÀ¦àgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀwAiÀÄ(ÁèVgÀÄªÀ «¼ÀA§PÉÌ CªÀgÉÃ (ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÉÃ) PÁgÀtgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄÄ MAzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, ¤ªÀÈvÀÛ £ËPÀjUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ ¨sÀzÀævÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶40

MzÀV¸ÀÄªÀ zsÉåÃAiÉÆÃzÉÝÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀªÉÇÃðZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, zÉºÀ°AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¹«�ï C¦Ã®Ä ¸ÀASÉå: 8162/2012 gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 29.08.2022 gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄªÀ wÃ¦ð£À°è F »AzÉ J(Áè vÀqÉAiÀiÁeÉÕUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¹, SÁ¸ÀV ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À ¥sÉqÀgÉÃµÀ£ï£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀÝ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁUÉÆ½¹, SÁ¸ÀV ²PÀët ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/²PÀëPÀjUÉ §rØ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj DzÉÃ±À ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ 6 ªÁgÀUÀ¼À M¼ÀUÁV ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ, vÀ¦àzÀ°è £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ/²PÀëPÀgÀÄ G¥ÀzsÀ£ÀPÁÌV ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄr PÉèÃªÀiï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸À§ºÀÄzÉAzÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±À£À ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢-1 CªÀjUÉ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.1,02,535/- UÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ(É ¢£ÁAPÀ: 21.11.2004 jAzÀ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è G¥ÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß oÉÃªÀtÂUÉÆ½¹zÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.06.2022 gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ ¥Àæw±ÀvÀ 10 gÀAvÉ §rØ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.1,80,460/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä ¨ÁzsÀå¸ÀÜgÉÃ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ wÃªÀiÁð¤¹zÉ.

¶41

F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÁUÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt ¥Áæ¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ DzÉÃ²¹zÀÝ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.2,13,121-00 UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27.06.2022 gÀAzÀÄ F ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ°è oÉÃªÀtÂUÉÆ½¹gÀÄªÀ »£Éß(ÉAiÀÄ°è G¥ÀzÁ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1972 ºÁUÀÆ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ, 1973gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæzÀvÀÛªÁzÀ C¢üPÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀÄ: ±ÉéÃvÁ J¸ï, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ G¥ÀzsÀ£À ¥ÁªÀw PÁAiÉÄÝ, 1972 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀgÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À CrAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄÃ®ä£À« ¥Áæ¢üPÁj, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ «¨sÁUÀ, ºÀÄ§â½î DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀÄªÀ.”

¶42

On perusal of the above portion of the Appellate

¶43

Authority’s order, would indicate that the complainants have failed to place on record Form-L, notice issued to the employee or any document to establish the deposit of gratuity amount before the Controlling Authority. Moreover, this Court under contempt jurisdiction cannot go into the correctness or otherwise of the reasons assigned by the Appellate Authority. When the Appellate Authority has assigned some reasons, it would suffice and it would comply the order dated 24.07.2023 in Writ Petition No.102588/2023 and connected matters. We do not find deliberate or intentional disobedience or contempt of the order. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶44

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:8230-DB CCC No. 100072 of 2024

¶45

It is open for the complainants to approach

¶46

appropriate authority/forum to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority, if aggrieved.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

RH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

The General Secretary Anjuman Hami E Muslimeen v. Mrs. Swetha S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The General Secretary Anjuman Hami E Muslimeen v. Mrs. Swetha S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Channappa Alias Kuruba Chennappa Aliyas Kuruba Channa Gouda S/O Kuruba Basanna Vs B. C. Shekar Reddy S/O B Govindra Reddy

Haji Usmangan Ihumnabad Vs Karnataka State Board of Auquaf

Sri Sayed Murtuza Shah Qadri S/O Sayed Shah Abdul Khadar Kadri Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Smt.Yallamma W/O Ramesh Ginageri Vs the State Election Commission

The Union of India Vs Shri. Yallappa S/O. Malakappa Nayak

Vijay S/O Shankar Rajamane Vs Santosh S/O Prabhakar Jadhav