Bombay High Court
Central Bank Of India Through ... vs Sandip Pralhad Ingole And Others on 8 February, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
1 cao431.20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO. 431/2020
IN
M.C.A.St. No. 19326/2019
in
WRIT PETITION NO. 8275 OF 2018
Central Bank of India and others vrs. Sandip Pralahd Ingole and ors
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order
Shri N.W.Almelkar, Advocate for petitioners.
Smt. Anjali Joshi, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 79
CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATED :- 08.02.2021
C.A.O. No. 431/2020
Heard.
For the reasons stated in the application, the application is
allowed.
Application is disposed of.
The review petition be registered.
M.C.A. No. /2021 (Stamp No.19326/2019)
Heard.
There are two grounds taken in this review petition. The
first ground is that there is a decision given at the Principal Seat of
this Court at Mumbai, wherein the claim of the similarly situated
employees was dismissed and therefore, this Court should not have
allowed the claim of the present original petitioners. It is also
2 cao431.20.odt
submitted that the judgment of dismissal rendered by the Principal
Seat at Mumbai, has attained its finality after Special Leave Petition
challenging the same came to be dismissed by the Apex Court.
This ground of objection cannot be accepted for the
simple reason that all the original petitioners were not parties to the
litigation before the Principal Seat of this Court and admittedly that
decision did not consider in any manner the binding nature of the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012, which has been found
by this Court to be binding upon the bank. This Memorandum of
Settlement has not been modified or cancelled till date and therefore,
it would not be open for the bank to say that it would not abide by its
commitment made in the Memorandum of Settlement. The argument
made in this behalf is, therefore, rejected.
The second ground of objection is that, it is not practically
possible to implement the order issued by this Court for the reason
that the bank is already having surplus staff and that there are no
vacancies whatsoever which could be and which are required to be
filled up.
This ground, in our opinion, also holds no water as the
Memorandum of Settlement dated 09.08.2012 is still binding upon the
bank and if the bank takes a decision that now no recruitment
whatsoever can be made due to non-availability of vacancies, it would
be obligatory for the bank to do something in respect of this
Memorandum of Settlement, which the bank has not done so far. So,
the argument made in this behalf is rejected.
Thus, we find that there is no merit in the review petition.
However, we clarify that the bank would be at liberty to re-negotiate
with the concerned union with whom it has entered into the
3 cao431.20.odt
Memorandum of Settlement, dated 09.08.2012, for seeking its
modification or cancellation, if it so desires.
With these observations, the review petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally
signed by
Rajesh Rajesh Jalit
Date:
Jalit 2021.02.08
18:12:43
+0530
