Bombay High Court
Ms. Smita Narhari Khode vs The Nagpur Mahila Nagri Sahakari ... on 14 June, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 912-wp-2339-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2339/2017
Smita Narhari Khode
Vs.
The Nagpur Mahila Nagri Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. B. Lahiri Advocate for petitioner
Mr. A.D. Mohogaonkar, Adv. for Respondent
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 14th JUNE, 2023
Head Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. A.D. Mohogaonkar, learned
counsel for respondent. The petition questions the
judgment dated 29/11/2016, passed by the learned
Industrial Court, whereby the complaint filed by the
petitioner has been partly allowed by directing the
respondent to make the complainant permanent in
service from the date of her appointment and pay all
monetary benefits of permanency applicable to the
permanent employees of Bank till 31/12/2010 and
also to pay closure compensation at par with
permanent employees along with the payment of
salary for the period when the complainant worked
with the Bank after 31/12/2010, if not paid, as well
as costs of Rs.10,000/-.
2 912-wp-2339-17.odt
2. Mr. Lahiri, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits, that the findings rendered by the
learned Industrial Court that there was a closure of
the respondent Bank is incorrect as there was no
compliance with the requirement of Section 25 (F)
(F) (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He therefore,
submits, that on that count, the impugned order is
required to be quashed and set aside and the
complaint of the petitioner is required to be allowed
in toto.
3. What is material to note and it is not in
dispute as this position is not controverted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the
banking license of the respondent Bank came to be
cancelled by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on
09/11/2009, as a result of which, the Bank effected
a closure wef 31/12/2010. The employees were
paid closure compensation and gratuity. The case of
the petitioner, was on a different footing for the
reason that she had already approached the
Industrial Court for regularization of her service in
which by an interim order dated 20/9/2006 status
quo was directed to be maintained on account of
which the services of the complaint remained
because of the Court order. The complaint filed by
the petitioner came to be allowed by the judgment
dated 29/10/2014 (page 94) which came to be
3 912-wp-2339-17.odt
challenged before this Court by way of Writ Petition
No. 3701/2015 in which by the judgment dated
21/10/2015, the findings rendered regarding the
payment of monetary benefits beyond 2010 were set
aside and the matter was remanded to the Industrial
Court to decide the question of entitlement of the
petitioner to the monetary benefits from the year
2010, more particularly from the date of termination
of similarly situated employees (page 109).
Subsequent to the remand, the impugned judgment
has been passed by the Industrial Court as indicated
above. Since it is an admitted position that the
working of the Bank came to an end on account of
the cancellation of the banking license by the RBI
which was cancelled on 30/6/2009 the question of
applicability of Section 25 (F)(F)(A) of the Industrial
Disputes Act would not arise, for the reason that
Section 25 (F)(F)(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act
contemplates a voluntary closure and not a closure
on account of the circumstances as are extant in the
present matter. In that view of the matter, the
closure thereof cannot be questioned.
4. It is also material to note, that though the
judgment of the Industrial Court is dated
29/12/2014, the status quo granted in the year 2006
had continued till that point of time and therefore,
continuation of the petitioner can also be said to be
4 912-wp-2339-17.odt
litigious in nature, which would not entitle the
petitioner to any benefits beyond what was
conferred upon the other employees.
5. The learned Industrial Court has already
held that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits of
permanency till 31/12/2010, which is what has also
been granted to the other employees. Insofar as the
claim of the petitioner that she has worked
thereafter also the admission in this regard on the
part of the respondent Bank is only for a period of 4
months from July 2011 to September 2011 and for
which period the petitioner can claim entitlement in
view of direction III in the impugned judgment,
considering which, I am not inclined to interfere in
the impugned judgment. The petition is dismissed
no costs.
6. Since a statement is made by the learned
counsel for the respondent that all the dues in terms
of the impugned judgment of the learned Industrial
Court had already been deposited before the
Industrial Court, the petitioner shall be entitled to
withdraw the same along with the accrued interest,
if any. The amount deposited in this Court by the
respondent in pursuance to the order dated
29/11/2016, is permitted to be withdrawn by the
respondent.
5 912-wp-2339-17.odt
7. All pending Civil Application are disposed
of in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
MP Deshpande
