AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—We are not at all impressed to exercise our contempt jurisdiction in matters where some directions are issued to the respondents who are arrayed as public authorities to quantify certain benefits, more so, in the nature of gratuity benefit said to have been payable by the employer to the complainants over and above the entitlement under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 because there is contract between employer and employee for providing better gratuity payment to the employees.
We find that difference if any as submitted by Sri. Muralidhar, learned counsel for the complainants in terms of rule - 18[4] of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, having not been quantified, either by the complainants - writ petitioners nor in the order passed by the learned single Judge, we do not feel enthused to exercise our contempt jurisdiction to call upon the accused person to lake action in contempt jurisdiction.
The order in the writ petition itself is dated 16.08.2011 and upper limit of six weeks mentioned in the order of the learned single Judge is only in the nature of an order in terrorem. It is open to the complainants to pursue their remedies before any other forum to get their benefits which they are otherwise entitled to in law and not seeking execution of the orders as though it is decree to be executed in contempt jurisdiction.
Contempt petitions are dismissed.