Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.KUMAR
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
C.C.C. Nos.692/2015 & 752-766/2015 [CIVIL]
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJA. C. S
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
S/O C.V. SURYANARAYANA RAO
R/AT NO.118, 4TH MAIN ROAD
INCOME TAX LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560040.
SRINIVASAN.B.S.
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O H.C. YOGANARASIMHAN
NO.216, I.G. CROSS, 3RD STAGE
4TH BLOCK, BASAVESWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560079.
NAGARAJAIAH.J
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O JANNAPPA
RESIDING AT NO.15/13
SRI. NILAYA, 12TH MAIN, SHIVANAGAR
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.
RAMESH.Y
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O Y. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
RESIDING AT 783, 4TH CROSS
11TH BLOCK, NAGARABAVI
II STAGE, BANGALORE-560072.
R. ANANDASHAYANAM
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
S/O P.S. RAJAGOPALAN
RESIDING AT NO.530
8TH MAIN, 11TH A CROSS
J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE
BANGALORE-560078.
RAMULU.K
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O K. KODANDAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.301/1
GOKUL 1ST STAGE, II PHASE
10TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS
BANGALORE-560054.
VENKATARAMANAPPA
SINCE DECEASED
HIS LR’s SMT. CHANDRAKALA (WIFE)
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
S/O DODDATHIMMAPPA
NO.472, I.B. STREET
C CROSS, MATHIKERE
BANGALORE-560054.
G. LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O H. GOVINDA DIKSITH
RESIDING AT NO. 121
3RD C CROSS, VIVEKANANDANAGAR
BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560085.
VIJAYASARATHY.K.V.
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O K.VENKATARAMAIAH
RESIDING AT NO.1454
7TH A MAIN, RPC LAYOUT
VIJAYANAGAR II STAGE
BANGALORE-560040.
NARASIMHAMURTHY.S
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O S.N. NINGA IYENGAR
RESIDING AT NO.55
SANNIDHI ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-560004.
G. RAJEEVALOCHANA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O GUNDAPPA
NO.31, 7TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN
GOVINDARAJANAGAR
BANGALORE-560079.
VENKATESHAN.K
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O KALYANA SUNDARAM
RESIDING AT NO.139, 2ND MAIN
CKA, BSK III STAGE, III PHASE
BANGALORE-560085.
H.N. SRINIVASAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O NARASIMHA IYENGAR
RESIDING AT NO.785/20
4TH MAIN, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE
A BLOCK, BANGALORE-560010.
RAMACHANDRAN.S.R
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
S/O V.S. RAJU NAIDU
RESIDING AT NO.26
BSK 3RD MAIN ROAD
III STAGE, 3RD PHASE
BANGALORE-560085.
K. SRINIVASAN.K
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
S/O B.L. KRISHNAMURTHY
RESIDING AT NO.352
6TH MAIN, N.R. COLONY
BANGALORE-560019.
B. NAGENDRA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
S/O M.S. ANANTHA RAJENDRA
NO.92, 1ST MAIN, AMARJYOTHINAGAR
BANGALORE-560040.
… COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI. N. MANOHAR-ADV )
AND
MR. K.K. GUPTA
THE CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR
M/S ITI LIMITED, ITI BHAVAN
CORPORATE OFFICE:
DOORVANINAGAR
BANGALORE-560016.
MR. S. GOPU
THE DIRECTOR (INCHARGE OF HR)
M/S ITI LIMITED, DOORVANINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560016.
MR. FAROOQUI
THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATION
NEW DELHI-01
... ACCUSED
(BY SRI. C.K. NANDA KUMAR-ADV FOR A1 & A2; SRI. KRISHNA.S. DIXIT-ASG FOR A3) * * *
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, PRAYING THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE PLEASED TO INITIATE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED:27.11.2002 PASSED IN W.P.Nos.36875-36889/2001 (S-RES) C/W W.P.Nos.46251- 46275/2001 & W.P.NO.16232/2002 (S) & W.P.NO.18016- 17/2013 DATED:17.04.2003 (ANNEXURE-A & B)
THESE CCCs ARE COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
These contempt petitions are filed complaining of disobedience of the Order dated 27.11.2002 passed in W.P. Nos.36875–36888/2001 and other connected matters, wherein a direction was given to the respondents/accused to pay the arrears of amount with interest if the said amount is paid in installments in terms of Clause 5.2 of the Scheme.
From the pleadings filed by the parties, it is not in dispute that all these complainants are paid the amount due under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme [“VRS” for short]. It is also not in dispute that who ever has been paid these benefits of installments, they have also been paid interest in
terms of Clause 5.2 of the Scheme. It is also not in dispute that there is a revision of pay-scale and the entire amount due by virtue of revision of pay-scale has also been paid. Now, the dispute is regarding interest payable on the amount due by way of revision of pay-scale, which has not been paid.
The matter has reached the Supreme Court. In the meanwhile the Company was declared as a Sick Industry and an order came to be passed by the BIFR. In the Supreme Court, the Government of India undertook to deposit Rs.165 crores for disbursement of the same towards arrears of salary to its employees. Accordingly, Rs.165 crores is paid to the Company on 28.11.2014 and the said amount has been disbursed. Now, the grievance of the complainants is in terms of Clause 5.2 of the Scheme, even on the revised amount due under the revision pay-scale, the interest is liable to pay.
The accused have filed counter pointing out that there are in all 5 Schemes, under which the VRS was provided. Therefore, the amount is paid in terms of the
Scheme on the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement application; the question of payment of interest would not arise. It is only in cases, where the amount agreed to be paid in installments under Clause 5.2 of the Scheme is attracted and in no other cases. In those cases also, the interest is paid on the amount of installments. But, when there is a revision of pay-scale and that the difference amount is also paid, whether that should be paid with interest is a mute question. The scheme formulated do not cover the area. Clause 5.2 of the Scheme would not attract such payment and therefore, there is no liability to pay the said interest. In fact, these questions have not been gone into in the order, which is sought to be enforced in these cases. As there is an order of Hon’ble Supreme Court and an order of the BIFR settling all the claims of the employees and the payment are made in terms of the said order, merely because interest on the difference in pay-scale is not paid, it cannot be said that the respondents/accused have no respect to the Court order and that there is disobedience. In a contempt petition, this question, which is not decided in the proceedings cannot be
gone into. Therefore, we do not see any justification to continue these contempt proceedings. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings are dropped reserving liberty to the complainants to put-forth a claim, so that the same could be considered by a Court of Law and appropriate order could be passed.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
SS-CT Ksm*