IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.15 OF 2015 AND WRIT APPEAL NO.258 OF 2016 (L-RES) BETWEEN:
DAKSHINA KANNADA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE: S.C.D.C.C.
EARLIER REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, R.J. KANTHARAJU, BANK BUILDING, MANGALURU-3, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PRAVEEN B. NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI NATARAJA BALLAL, ADVOCATE) AND 1. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER CUM RECOVERY AUTHORITY, HASSAN REGION, HASSAN-573 201.
2. WORKMEN OF DAKSHINA KANNADA SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMITA, REPRESENTED BY SAKKARE KARMIKARA SANGHA (R), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, BRAHMAVARA-576 213.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUBBA RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI K. N. SATEESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED) THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT READ WITH RULE 27 OF THE WRIT PROCEEDINGS RULES PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.57149-57150 OF 2013 DATED 03.04.2014.
***** THESE WRIT APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.57149-57150 of 2013, in dismissing the writ petition in limine the writ petitioner has filed this petition.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in rejecting the writ petition, only because an undertaking of the writ petitioner in C.C.No.1038 of 2011, has not been complied with. He pleads that the petition requires to be considered on merits.
3. Shri.Subba Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel for respondent No.2 submits that his interest insofar as the recovery of the monies due to the workmen is concerned, he has filed Writ Petition No.23519 of 2014, seeking for an appropriate relief. Therefore, if the appeal is to be allowed, this writ petition may also be heard along with the pending writ petitions.
4. Heard learned counsels.
5. The learned Single Judge held that in view of the order passed in C.C.No.1038 of 2011, wherein the writ petitioner has given an undertaking that the entire amount would be disbursed to the workmen on or before 31.12.2013, having not been complied with and even the explanation sought for the payment being rejected, the petition was dismissed.
6. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the considered view that the right of the writ petitioner requires to be considered. The right pleaded in the writ petition is quite distinct from the liability of the writ petitioner in the contempt proceedings. The contempt court was at liberty to proceed in accordance with law, so far as the proceedings in the contempt is concerned. The said order cannot be considered for the purpose of considering the rights of the writ petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, we find that an error was committed by the learned Single Judge.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeals are allowed. The order dated 03.04.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition Nos.57149-57150 of 2013, is set-aside. The writ petitions are restored to the file. At request, the writ petitions are directed to be heard along with Writ Petition No.23519 of 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-
CT:SM