Bombay High Court
Pa;Rmatma Ek Sevak Nagrik ... vs Shri Bandu Shriram Thavkar on 11 September, 2015
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 wp1446.09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1446 OF 2009
Parmatma Ek Sevak Nagarik
Sahakari Bank, through its Chief
Executive Officer Shri Namdeo
Mahadeo Barapatre, aged about
Major, Occ. Service, Office at
Ganes Peth, Nagpur PETITIONER
ig ...VERSUS...
Shri Bandu Shriram Thavkar,
aged about Major, Occ. Head Cashier,
Office at Parmatma Ek Sevak Nagarik
Sahakari Bank, Golibar Chowk Branch,
Itwari, Nagpur. ...... RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
None for the parties
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 11 SEPTEMBER, 2015 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
None for the parties.
2] The challenge in this petition is to the judgment
and order dated 27.08.2008, passed by the Industrial Court
in Complaint (ULPN) No. 25 of 2004, filed under Section 28
read with Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra
2 wp1446.09.odt
Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour
Practices Act, 1971 (for short MRTU and PULP Act) which
has been allowed and the petitioner bank is directed to
consider the case of the complainant for promotion to the
post of Assistant Branch Manager of the Bank with effect
from 06.08.2001 with all consequential benefits within a
period of 4 months from the date of the order. The employer
is, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition.
3] On 13.07.2009, the matter was admitted with the
following order.
"Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Rule
Since the petitioner has made out a prima facie
case, the impugned order dated 27.08.2008 is
stayed only in regard to the direction to the petitioner
to pay the consequential benefits to the respondent
with effect from 06.08.2001.
The learned counsel Shri Bhoot waives notice of
hearing on behalf of the respondent"
By way of interim order, this Court has protected the relief
granted to the complainant regarding consideration of his
case for promotion to the post of Assistant Branch Manager
of the Bank. However, the order granting consequential
benefits has beens stayed.
3 wp1446.09.odt
4] The Industrial Court has recorded the finding that
the complainant was senior to two other persons namely,
Shri Ganesh Kamble and Shri Sheetal Wagh , who were at
Serial No. 8 and 16 respectively in the seniority list of Senior
Clerk prepared on 01.01.2001. The name of the complainant
appears at Serial No. 6 in the seniority list. The complainant
was promoted to the post of Chief Cashier on 16.03.2001,
which probably is the post below the post of Assistant Branch
Manager in hierarchy. The two other persons namely Shri
Ganesh Kamble and Shri Sheetal Wagh who were below in
the seniority list of Senior Clerk were promoted in
supersession to the claim of the complainant directly to the
post of Assistant Branch Manager. The Industrial Court
found voilation of Item 5 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and
PULP Act.
5] The Industrial Court could not have recorded the
aforesaid finding in the absence of the concerned persons
being joined as party respondent in the original complaint.
The complainant ought to have joined Shri Ganesh Kamble
and Shri Sheetal Wagh as respondents in the complaint and
the Industrial Court ought to have provided such opportunity
4 wp1446.09.odt
to the complainant. The order passed by the Industrial Court,
therefore, need to be set aside on this short ground with a
direction to decide the matter afresh after permitting the
complainant to join the said persons as party respondents in
the main complaint.
6] In the result, writ petition is party allowed. The
judgment and order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the
Industrial Court in Complaint (ULPN) No. 25 of 2004 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to
the Industrial Court to decide it afresh after giving the
complainant an opportunity to join the aforestated two
persons as party respondents in the main complaint. Upon
joining such persons as respondents, notices shall be issued
by the Industrial Court and thereafter the matter shall be
decided in accordance with law. Pending the decision of the
complaint, the position prevailing as on this date shall
continue to operate.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order
as to cost.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
