Jayashree Haldankar vs Reserve Bank Worker ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9302 Bom

                                                  1.RPW(L)10.2015.DOC




                       Talwalkar


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                                        REVIEW PETITION(L) NO. 10 OF 2015
                                                          IN
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 1517 OF 2006

                       Mrs. Jayshree Haldankar.           ... Petitioner.
                              Versus
                       Reserve Bank worker Organisation & ...Respondents.
                       ors.

                       Mr. Ramesh Ramamurthy and Sai Kumar
                       Ramamurthy, Advocate for Review Petitioner.

                       Ms. Aditi Pathak a/w Mr. Vijay Solankhe, Ms. Kirti
                       Ojha i/b. BLAC & Co., Advocate for Respondent No. 2
                       Reserve Bank of India.


          Digitally
          signed by
                                                 CORAM:                  M.S. SONAK, J.

                                                 DATED :                 15th September 2022
          ARUNA S
ARUNA S   TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date:
          2022.09.16
          10:42:26
          +0530




                       P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Ramamurthy, learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner and Ms. Aditi Pathak, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 RBI.

2. This is review petition instituted by Ms. Jayshree Haldankar, a Punch Operator, seeking review of the Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2014 in Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2006. The Writ Petition No. 1517 of

12th September 2022

1.RPW(L)10.2015.DOC

2006 was instituted by the Reserve Bank Workers Organisation, Mumbai questioning an award dated 14/11/2005 made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal(CGIT) dismissing Reference No. CGIT-1/9 of 2002.

3. The Central Government, had referred the following dispute to the CGIT :-

"Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai in not granting promotions to the Fund Machine Operators is justified ? If not, what relief these employees is entitled ?"

4. The CGIT, by the above award dated 14/11/2005 had dismissed the reference by concluding that action of the Reserve Bank of India was neither contrary to the law nor norms of arbitrary. By Judgment and Order dated 9th October, 2014, Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2006 was dismissed.

5. In the above circumstances, there is no question of individual worker seeking a review of the Judgment and Order. However, Mr. Ramamurthy pointed that Mrs. Jayashree Haldankar was heard by this Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2006 and therefore, she has right to maintain the review.

6. Mrs. Haldankar was heard in Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2006 by way of an indulgence. This indulgence cannot be carried further for maintaining Review Petition.

12th September 2022

1.RPW(L)10.2015.DOC

7. In any case, considering the review petitioner was a worker, Mr. Ramamurthy was heard on merits of the review petition as well. Mr. Ramamurthy has submitted that post of Fund Machine Operator was virtually abolished since 1975, despite such abolition, the workers were continued on such non-existing post and even stagnated. He submits that this was an illegal and arbitrary act on the part of the Reserve Bank of India and therefore, a case for review is made out.

8. Mr. Ramamurthy also contends that the original Petitioner i.e. Reserve Bank Workers Organisation did not properly present the workers' case before the Tribunal and submitted that this aspect also be taken into account for entertaining and granting reliefs in the Review Petition.

9. Ms. Pathak, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 RBI submitted that no case is made out for grant of any relief in this Writ Petition and she defended the tribunal's Award and the Judgment of which review was applied based on the reasoning reflected therein.

10. On merits, it is apparent that the ground now urged by Mr. Ramamurthy was also the ground urged before the Tribunal and before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1517 of 2006. This ground was considered in great detail by both the Tribunal as well as this Court. Reiteration of the same ground is not sufficient for the exercise of review jurisdiction.

12th September 2022

1.RPW(L)10.2015.DOC

11. In any case, there was delay and laches involved in raising the disputes. The Reserve Bank of India has produced chart, which was not even disputed by the Petitioners explaining their actions. All this is reflected in paragraphs- 9 to 12 of the Judgment, of which review is applied for. Even, the issue of stagnation in the post of Fund Machine Operator was considered. This Court has also recorded that there was no instance where any of the Fund Machine Operator was promoted, but such promotions were declined to these workmen who had raised dispute. Considering all these aspects and keeping in mind the limited scope of review jurisdiction, I do not think that any case has been made out for grant of any relief in this review petition.

12. Accordingly, this Review Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order for costs.

M. S. SONAK, J.

12th September 2022