Bombay High Court
Divisional Officer, Mah. State ... vs Sou. Rajani Vijay Deshmukh on 25 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
W.P. No.873/2015 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.873 OF 2015
Petitioners : 1] The Divisional Officer,
Maharashtra State Co-operative Agriculture Rural
Multipurpose Development Bank Limited,
Mumbai Branch, Mumbai,
ig Divisional Office at Ganeshpeth, Nagpur
through Mr. Sharadchandra Tikhile.
2] The Incharge Manager (Est. & Admin),
M.S.C.A.R.M.D. Bank, Ltd.,
Registered Office at 15-A, Morvi Lane, Chaupati,
Mumbai - 400 007.
-- Versus --
Respondent : Sau. Rajani Vijay Deshmukh,
Aged about - 66 years, Occupation : Retired,
R/o Jitendra Apartment, Plot No.622,
New Subhedar Layout, Nagpur - 440 024.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Shri S.A. Pathak, Advocate for the Petitioners
Shri S.A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Respondent
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
C ORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 25
JULY, 2016.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the rival parties.
W.P. No.873/2015 2 Judgment
02] The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated
08/10/2014 passed by the Industrial Court in the complaint filed by the
respondent under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade
Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. By the said
order, the petitioners have been directed to pay an amount of Rs.55,398/-
with 9% interest to the respondent by way of dues that were payable to
her.
03] The respondent was in employment of the petitioner no.1-
Bank on the post of clerk. After attaining the age of superannuation on
31/05/2006, an amount of Rs.1,16,169/- was paid to her towards
retirement benefits. According to the respondent, she was entitled to a
further amount of Rs.41,099 along with interest. As the aforesaid amounts
were not paid, she filed the complaint in question. In the reply filed on
behalf of the petitioners, a stand was taken that the entire dues had been
paid to the respondent and hence, no relief could be granted to her. Before
the Industrial Court, the respondent led her evidence. However, the
petitioners failed to lead their evidence. Though request was made for
grant of permission to lead the evidence, said request was not accepted. By
the impugned judgment, the complaint has been partly allowed and the
petitioners have been directed to pay Rs.55,398/- with interest to the
respondent.
W.P. No.873/2015 3 Judgment
04] Shri S.A. Pathak, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the respondent was entitled only for an amount of Rs.14,299/- and not
the amounts as claimed by the respondent. He placed reliance on the
documents filed on record to indicate that the respondent had been called
upon to receive the aforesaid dues, but she did not turn up to accept the
same. He submitted that after adjusting the amounts that were liable to be
paid by the respondent towards the loan account, the aforesaid balance had
been calculated. According to him, all these documents which were
available with the petitioners could not be placed on record as the
concerned officer had been transferred and hence evidence could not be
led on behalf of the petitioners. He submitted that considering the
aforesaid, an opportunity deserves to be granted to the petitioners to lead
evidence and bring the aforesaid documents on record. He maintained that
according to the petitioners the only amount that was due and payable was
Rs.14,299/-.
05] Shri S.A. Chaudhari, learned Counsel for the respondent
supported the impugned order. According to him, the respondent had led
evidence and had demonstrated that she was entitled to receive the entire
amount of Rs.55,398/-. According to him, the respondent could not be
blamed for the failure on the part of the petitioners to lead evidence. He
submitted that though the concerned officer was transferred in the month
W.P. No.873/2015 4 Judgment
of June, 2012, the application seeking permission to set aside the
'no evidence order' was moved in October, 2012. He, therefore, submitted
that the amount having been rightly calculated by the Industrial Court,
there was no reason to interfere.
06] Having heard the respective Counsel and having perused the
documents on record, I find that there is a dispute between the parties with
regard to the exact amount that is due and payable to the respondent.
While according to the respondent, she was entitled to receive an amount
of Rs.41,099/-, it is the case of the petitioners that only an amount of
Rs.14,299/- is due and payable to her. Though it is true that despite grant
of opportunity to the petitioners there was failure to lead any evidence, it is
found that the determination of the actual amount of dues payable is also
necessary. Considering the facts of the case and as the only dispute is with
regard to the proper calculation of the amounts due, the following order
would meet the ends of justice.
07] With a view to grant one opportunity to the petitioners to lead
evidence, the order dated 08/10/2014 in Complaint (ULP) No130/2007 is
set aside on the following conditions:
i. The respondent would be entitled to withdraw the amount of
Rs.20,000/- that has been deposited by the petitioners in this
Court.
W.P. No.873/2015 5 Judgment
ii. The petitioners shall further pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand Only) to the respondent within a period of four
weeks from today. The balance amount deposited by the
petitioners along with accrued interest shall be returned to the
petitioners.
iii. If the costs as directed are paid, the Industrial Court shall
restore the aforesaid complaint and permit the petitioners to
lead evidence. The respondent would also be at liberty to lead
further evidence, if necessary. If the costs are not paid within
aforesaid period, the order dated 08/10/2014 in the
complaint shall continue to operate.
iv. The withdrawal of the aforesaid amount is without prejudice
to the rights of the parties and subject to final outcome of the
complaint.
v. The parties shall appear before the Industrial Court on 8 th
August, 2016. The Industrial Court shall decide the complaint
by the end of December, 2016.
vi. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE
*sdw
W.P. No.873/2015 6 Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed judgment.
Uploaded by: S.D. Waghmare Uploaded on : 27/07/2016
P.A. to the Hon'ble Judge.
