Bombay High Court
Chief Executive Officer Parner ... vs Anil Namdeo Mapari on 14 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/9649/2015+
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9649 OF 2015
Chief Executive Officer,
Parner Taluka Sainik Sahakari
Bank Limited, Shivaji Road,
Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
Anil Namdeo Mapari,
At Post Ralegan Siddhi,
Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Respondent
ig ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Tarde Vivek V.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Barde Parag Vijay
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10572 OF 2015
Anil Namdeo Mapari,
Age 37 Years, Occ. Service,
At Post Ralegan Siddhi,
Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..Petitioner
Versus
Parner Taluka Sainik Sahakari
Bank Limited, Shivaji Nagar Road,
Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar,
through its Chief Executive Officer. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Barde Parag Vijay
Advocate for Respondent : Shri Tarde Vivek V.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: March 14, 2016
...
WP/9649/2015+
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is
taken up for final disposal.
4.
The petitioner in the first petition is a Cooperative Bank. The
respondent is an employee. The same respondent has filed the second
petition in which the Bank is the respondent. The Bank, as well as the
employee are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated
19.3.2015. The claim of the employee in his petition is restricted to the
grievance that he has not been granted consequential benefits, after the
Industrial Court has quashed and set aside the order of reversion dated
30.9.2011.
5. The crux of the matter is that the Bank has alleged against the
employee that he has misused a password and has transferred an amount of
Rs.5,50,000/- to the account of Shri Jaising Sukhadeo Mapari, who has
withdrawn the said amount on the same date. The employee, who is a
senior officer has therefore, been reverted by a resolution passed by the
Bank.
WP/9649/2015+
6. The contention of the employee is that before passing the punitive
order of reversion, which is a major punishment, an enquiry was not
conducted as per Rule 20(4) of the Service Rules, made applicable.
7. I find that the Bank has raised an issue of status of the employee in
Complaint (ULP) No.1 of 2012 filed by the employee for challenging his
reversion. It has been averred in the written statement that the employee
is a senior officer and who discharges administrative and supervisory
functions. He would recommend and sanction leave of his under staff. Shri
Barde, learned Advocate submits that he has filed his complaint in his
capacity as a Junior Officer after his reversion and therefore, the complaint
was maintainable.
8. I do not find that the Industrial Court has framed an issue in the light
of the contentions of the Bank set out in the Written Statement so as to
adjudicate as to whether the employee is a "workman" under Section 2(s)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and is an "employee" under Section 3(5)
of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair
Labour Practices Act, 1971 ("the said Act "). As has been concluded by this
Court in the case of Dalal Engineering Pvt. Ltd. vs Ramrao Bhaurao Sawant
And Others [1991 (4) Bom.CR 571 = (1992) IILLJ 384 Bom. = 1991 (2) Mh.L.J.
1534], that the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction without coming to a
conclusion that it will have jurisdiction to deal with the complaint.
WP/9649/2015+
9. The contention of Shri Barde that the complaint was filed in his
capacity as a Jr. Officer and hence the issue as to whether he is a workman
or not need not be gone into, is a fallacious submission The relief that was
sought by the employee was to the extent of setting aside the order of
reversion and posting him to the original position as a Sr. Officer.
10. In the light of the above, the Industrial Court shall have to frame an
issue as to whether the employee is a workman, going by his designation of
Sr. Officer and not as a Jr. Officer pursuant to the impugned order.
11. As such, the petition filed by the Bank is partly allowed. Complaint
(ULP) No.1 of 2012 is remitted back to the Industrial Court for framing of an
issue as to whether the complainant is a "workman" or not. Both the
litigating sides are at liberty to lead oral and documentary evidence in
support of their respective contentions.
12. Similarly, in the event, the employee is held to be a "workman"
going by his designation of Sr. Officer and his nature of duties, the
Industrial Court shall then deal with the issue as to whether the order of
reversion was passed after following the due procedure and the service
Rules applicable. The Industrial Court shall, thereafter, decide the
complaint on its own merits.
WP/9649/2015+
13. Rule is therefore, made partly absolute in the first petition filed by
the Bank.
Consequentially, the second petition filed by the employee is
dismissed and Rule is discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
