THE CHIEF OFFICER vs BHEEMASHANKAR

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA



KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 200083 OF 2025

C/W

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200158 OF 2025 (S-REG)

WRIT APPEAL NO. 200234 OF 2025 (S-REG)



IN CCC No. 200083/2025

BETWEEN:

BHEEMASHANKER S/O SAIBANNA,
AGE: 50 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE
IN TMC CHINCHOLI,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585301,
KALABURAGI-585105.
…COMPLAINANT
(BY SRI. K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. DEEPA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.




Digitally signed by
B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


2. SMT. NINGAMMA BIRADAR,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585102.

[AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 25.09.2025],
…ACCUSED

3. SECRETARY,
DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

… PROFORMA PARTY

(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R1 & R3;
SRI R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CCC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION
OF INDIA R/W SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURT
ACT, PRAYING TO REGISTER THE COMPLAINT AND ISSUE NOTICE
CALLING UPON THE RESPONDENTS, WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE
DEALT WITH UNDER THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT 1971 FOR
HAVING NOT COMPLIED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
WRIT PETITION NO.202533/2021 (S-REG) DATED 25.09.2024 AND
ACCORDINGLY PUNISH THE RESPONDENTS EVEN BY DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE PENALTY, DUE TO THEIR UTTER FAILURE
IN COMPLIANCE OF THE JUDICIAL ORDERS AND ETC.

IN WA NO. 200158/2025

BETWEEN:

THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHINCHOLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI- 585102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R. J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025



AND:

1. BHEEMASHANKAR
S/O SAIBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE
IN TALUKA COUNCIL,
CHINCHOLI, TQ. CHINCHOLI,
KALABURAGI- 585102.

2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF
URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE- 560001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.09.2024,
IN WP NO. 202533/2021 (S-REG).


IN WA NO. 200234/2025

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY, GA )

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025



AND:

1. BHEEMASHANKAR
S/O SAIBANNA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
OCC: DAILY WAGE EMPLOYEE
IN TALUKA COUNCIL,
CHINCHOLI,
TQ.CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.

2. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
CHINCHOLI,
TQ. CHINCHOLI,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. M. GHATE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SANGOLI NAGANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. R.J. BHUSARE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE DATED 25.09.2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NO.202533/2021 (S-REG).


THIS CCC AND APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. The contempt petition is filed by the complainant-
employee seeking to initiate contempt proceedings
against the accused for disobeying the order dated
25.09.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.202533 of 2021.

2. The appeal in W.A.No.200158 of 2025 is filed by the
Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council, Chincholi, and
the appeal in W.A.No.200234 of 2025 is filed by the
State. Both the appeals are filed challenging the
order dated 25.09.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.202533 of 2021.

3. Brief facts giving rise to filing of this petition and
appeals are as under:
Respondent No.1-employee filed writ petition seeking
writ of mandamus directing the Chief Officer, Town
Municipal Council, Chincholi, (hereinafter referred to

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


as ‘TMC’) to consider the representation vide
Annexure-C. The learned Single Judge disposed of
the writ petition directing the Chief Officer, TMC, to
regularize the services of the petitioner as ordered by
the Labour Court, within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of copy of the said order. The
State Government as well as the Chief Officer, TMC,
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.202533/2021, have filed these writ
appeals.

4. Heard learned Principal Government Advocate
appearing for the State, Sri R.J. Bhusare, learned
counsel appearing for the Chief Officer, TMC,
Chincholi, and Sri K.M.Ghate, learned counsel
appearing for employee.

5. Learned Principal Government Advocate submits that
the Government was not a party before the Labour
Court and therefore, the award passed by the Labour

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


Court is not binding on the State Government. He
submits that respondent No.1-employee submitted
representation before the Chief Officer, TMC, vide
Annexure-C. Respondent No.1-employee filed writ
petition in the form of execution petition to execute
the award passed by the Labour Court. Respondent
No.1-employee has got efficacious remedy provided
under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 and without exhausting the remedy provided
under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,
he filed the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition
filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. To
buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India and
1
Others . On these grounds, he prays to allow the
appeal filed by the State.

1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2510

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025



6. Learned counsel appearing for the Chief Officer, TMC,
submits that the Chief Officer has no jurisdiction to
regularize the service of respondent No.1-employee
and it is only the Government which has to consider
the case of respondent No.1-employee for
regularization of service. The Chief Officer of TMC
has already forwarded the papers to the Government
for regularization of service, and the Government has
to consider the recommendation made by the Chief
Officer for regularization. Hence, on these grounds,
he prays to allow the appeal filed by the Chief
Officer, TMC.
Per contra
7. , learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.1-employee submits that the Labour Court has
issued direction to the Chief Officer, Town Panchayat,
Chincholi, to regularize service of respondent No.1-
employee. The said award passed by the Labour
Court has not been complied with. Therefore,
respondent No.1-employee submitted representation

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


vide Annexure-C dated 16.06.2021 to the Chief
Officer, TMC, requesting to take action within a
period of two weeks from the date of submission of
representation. The Chief Officer did not consider the
representation. Respondent No.1-employee
aggrieved by the action of the Chief Officer, TMC, in
not considering the representation and not passing
any order on the representation, filed the writ
petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the
learned counsel for the parties, directed the Chief
Officer, TMC, to regularize the service of respondent
No.1-employee, as ordered by the Labour Court. He
submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly
passed the impugned order. However, the State as
well as the Chief Officer instead of complying the
order passed by the learned Single Judge, have filed
these writ appeals. Hence, on these grounds, he
prays to dismiss the writ appeals.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025



8. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.

9. It is an undisputed fact that respondent No.1 is an
employee of Town Municipal Council, Chincholi. He
raised industrial dispute. The State Government, vide
order dated 13.08.2001, made reference under
Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act for
adjudication as to whether the TMC is justified in not
regularizing the services of the employee from the
date of his appointment. The Labour Court, after full-
fledged trial, allowed the reference in Reference
No.238 of 2001 by award dated 30.03.2002 and
directed the Chief Officer, TMC, to regularize the
services of employee therein at Sl.Nos.1 to 19
without any monetary benefits and held that the
employee are entitled to other service benefits i.e.,
leave, etc. The Chief Officer, Town Panchayat,
Chincholi, aggrieved by the award passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gulbarga, in

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


Reference No.238 of 2001, approached this Court in
W.P.No.2017 of 2003 and W.P.Nos.53676-93 of
2003. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated
25.11.2004, dismissed the writ petition for not taking
steps. Thus, the said award passed by the Labour
Court has attained finality. Respondent No.1-
employee submitted a representation vide Annexure-
C, dated 16.06.2021 before the Chief Officer, TMC,
requesting to regularize the services from the date of
his appointment along with service benefits and back
wages in terms of the award dated 30.03.2002,
passed by the Labour Court, Gulbarga, in Reference
No.238 of 2001. The Chief Officer, TMC did not
consider the representation and pass any order on
the said representation. Therefore, respondent No.1-
employee filed the writ petition seeking mandamus
directing the Chief Officer, TMC, to regularize the
services of respondent No.1-employee in terms of
the award passed by the Labour Court. Pursuant to

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


the award passed by the Labour Court, as TMC has
no authority to regularize the services of the
employees of the TMC, made a recommendation to
the State Government who is the appropriate
authority for regularization of services of respondent
No.1-employee. The State Government has
considered the recommendation and issued the
Endorsement on 23.09.2025 rejecting the request
made by respondent No.1-employee for
regularization of services. The Endorsement is issued
on 23.09.2025 i.e., after disposal of the writ petition.
The State has already considered the representation
and the recommendation made by the Chief Officer,
and issued Endorsement on 23.09.2025 rejecting the
request of respondent No.1-employee for
regularization. In view of the same, nothing survives
for consideration in these writ appeals.

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025



10. The Government has furnished copy of the
Endorsement to the learned counsel for respondent
No.1-employee today. The same is taken on record.

11. Accordingly, the writ appeals are disposed of ,
reserving liberty to respondent No.1-employee to
challenge the Endorsement dated 23.09.2025 in
accordance with law.

12. In case respondent No.1-employee challenges the
Endorsement dated 23.09.2025, the appropriate
Forum is requested to decide the case independently
without being influenced by any observations made
in the impugned order as well as in this judgment. All
the contentions of the parties are kept open.

13. Shri Vijay Mahantesh, Chief Officer, Town Municipal
Council, Chincholi, is present before the Court.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the Chief Officer, TMC,
Chincholi, on instructions, undertakes to pay salary

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10875-DB
CCC No. 200083 of 2025
C/W WA No. 200158 of 2025
WA No. 200234 of 2025


CNR: KAHC030014742025


of respondent No.1-employee within a period of 15
days. The undertaking is placed on record.

15. In case the Chief Officer, Town Municipal Council,
Chincholi, fails to pay the amount within 15 days,
liberty is reserved to respondent No.1 to file the
contempt petition.

16. In view of the disposal of the writ appeals, the
contempt petition does not survive for consideration.
Accordingly, the contempt petition is disposed of .


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE

NB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7/Ct:pk