The Jalna District Central Co Op ... vs Umesh Nanasaheb Kawade
2018 Latest Caselaw 928 Bom

                                                                      LPA No. 17/07
                                          1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                   LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 17 OF 2007
                                     IN
                      WRIT PETITION NO. 7241 OF 2006
                                    WITH
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 677 OF 2007

1.     The Jalna District Central
       Co-operative Bank Limited
       Santoshi Mata Road,
       Jalna, Tq. & District Jalna,
       Through it's General Manager.

2.     The Jalna District Central
       Co-operative Bank Limited
       Santoshi Mata Road,
       Jalna, Tq. & District Jalna,
       Through it's Administrator.               ....Appellants.

               Versus

       Umesh s/o. Nanasaheb Kawade,
       Age 53 years, Occu. Service,
       R/o. Sahakar Bank Colony,
       Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna.                 ....Respondent.


Mr. V.R. Dhorde h/f. Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel for appellants.
Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for respondent.


                                CORAM     :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                              SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                DATED :       JANUARY 24, 2018.

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

1)             Both the sides are present. Both the sides are heard.



2)             Before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.

7241/2006, the order made by the Industrial Court, Jalna in ULP No.

LPA No. 17/07

19/2005 was challenged. The Industrial Court held that there was

unfair labour practice and the present respondent employee of the

appellants is entitled to get the benefit of the scheme for which his

contribution was collected. He suffered heart attack in the year 2002

and when the scheme was started in the year 1997 and the

deductions from source, from salary was made till the month of May

2005. These circumstances are considered by the Industrial Court

and direction is given to the present appellants to make payment of

80% of the amount of Rs. 1,73,115/- as the medical expenses.

3) The learned Single Judge of this Court granted

conditional stay and directed the appellants to deposit the amount of

Rs. 1,30,000/- as against aforesaid amount for getting interim relief.

Liberty is given by the learned Single Judge of this Court to

employee to withdraw the amount subject to condition that he gives

undertaking that he will return the amount if the employer succeeds

in the matter.

4) The orders like stay, injunction made by any Court of

interim nature are made always by using the discretionary power

given to the Court. The appellate Courts are expected not to lightly

interfere in such orders. Further, whenever there is social and

beneficial legislation in favour of the employees, the interpretation of

LPA No. 17/07

the statues needs to be made accordingly. So, when there is

question of giving interim relief in the case like present one and the

Court makes some order which is conditional in nature, the appellate

Court is not expected to interfere in that order.

5) It is unfortunate that this Court granted stay to the order

made by the learned Single Judge in the year 2008 and the matter

remained pending in this Court for almost 10 years. Due to that the

matter before learned Single Judge remained pending. In view of the

aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that nothing can be

achieved in the present matter. The appeal stands dismissed. The

civil application is disposed of.

       [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]               [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]



ssc/