IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2011 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B. ADI AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA C.C. NO.2358J2011 LCIVZLI BETWEEN: Shri. Madiva1appa S/o. Mallappa Kuflur Age: Major, 0cc: Ex-Ernp1ovee R/o. Rorebelallavadi Taluk & Dist. I)harxvad COMPLAIiANT [By Sri. Ravi N. Chikkaradder. Adv.) AND: Common Cadre Authority Karnataka Central Co operative F3ank Ltd., Dharw ad B\ its Member Convenor CCA & Managing Director Shri. B. Manjunath Naik ACCUSED I This CCC is flied u/s. 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 pra3ing to take cognizance of the contempt of Court committed by the accused in the matter of violating the order passed by this Ilonbie Court in Writ Petition No.14781/2002 dated 10.11.2005 as per Annexure-B and etc. This CCC coming on for orders this day, Subhash B. Adi J. made the following: ORDER The petitioner has alleged that the respondent has committed contempt of Court by not obeying the order dated 10.11.2005 produced at Annexure B. 2. This Court by order dated 10.11.2005 has dismissed the writ petition No.14781/2002, wherein the petitioner has sought for quashing of the award dated 25.05.2000 passed hi the Labour Court. Ilubli, reco erv certificate dated 3 1.10.2001 issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Belgaum and notice dated 19.03.2002 issued by the Tahsildar, Revenue Department. Dhanvad. This Cxvi C’ ‘II Court while dismissing the writ petition has obsen ccl as under: ‘No grounds. Petition stands rejected. Libert is reserved to the petitioner to recover the amount from the 2.1 respondent in accordance with law. No costs. 3. There is no direction issued to the respondent to pa the amount in pursuance of the ard and in turn libert3 is resen ed to the petitioner to recover the same in accordance with law. 4. It appears that the petitioner referred to in the rit petition ma be the applicant in whose favour the ard might have been passed. Even if there is an award passed by the Labour Court in favour of this petitioner, the said award is executable. hence there is no cause for initiating the contempt proceedings. 5. Further, there is no direction issued in favour of the petitioner. Hence there is no contempt of Court committed by the respondent. 4 As such, the petition is liable to he dismisse(1 and accordingix dismissed. Sd! JUDGE Sd/ JUDGE gab/