Bombay High Court
Kunbi Sahakari Bank Limited And Others vs Sanjiv Shriram Barbade And Others on 13 November, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
signed by
PRASHANT
2025:BHC-AS:49453-DB
PRASHANT VILAS RANE
VILAS
RANE Date:
2025.11.18
16:14:29
+0530
407-LPA-43OF2011.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.8543 OF 2010
The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Limited and Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shri. Sanjiv ShriramBarbade & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2024
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.43 OF 2011
Sanjiv Shriram Barabde and Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The Kunbi Sahakari Bank Ltd. And Ors. ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Anand Pai a/w Mr. Netaji Gawade Adv. i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for
Appellants.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 13 NOVEMBER 2025
P.C.
1. We have heard Mr. Pai, learned Counsel for the appellant. None for the
respondents.
2. We have perused the impugned order dated 06 December 2010 passed by
the learned Single Judge whereby the petition was allowed by the following
order:-
"1. The order of the Labour Court and of the Industrial Court in
Complaint (ULP) No.68 of 2010 and Revision Application (ULP)
No.141 of 2010 have been challenged in this petition. The petitioners
contend that they are employees under the Bombay Industrial
Relations Act as defined u/s 3(13) of the Act. The respondent Bank
contests this fact and contends that the employees are Managers or
Officers and, therefore do not fall within the definition of section 3(13)
of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act (for short, `BIR Act'). The
P.V.Rane
407-LPA-43OF2011.DOC
petitioners had approached the Labour Court under Item 1 of Schedule
IV during the conduct of the domestic enquiry against them,
contending that it was not conducted in Marathi as requested by them
and that certain documents which they have sought were not produced
by the employer.
2. The Labour Court has held that the petitioners are not "workmen
u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act". It has therefore dismissed the
complaint. As regards the findings as to the relevancy of the documents
the Labour Court has only observed that it should not stall the
proceedings before the enquiry officer in view of various judgments of
this Court as well as the Supreme Court. It has not considered the
relevancy of the documents sought by the petitioners. The Labour
Court has further considered the question whether the enquiry should
be conducted in Marathi as required under the the standing orders
applicable. The Labour Court has held that since no prejudice would be
caused to the employees if the enquiry proceedings are conducted in
Marathi and recorded in English. These findings of the Labour Court
have been confirmed by the Industrial Court. However, the Industrial
Court has held that the Labour Court ought not to have dismissed the
complaint on merits it was necessary for it to give an opportunity to the
petitioners to lead evidence to prove that they are employees as defined
under the BIR Act.
3. In my opinion, both the Courts below have committed serious
errors in passing the impugned orders. The Labour Court while
dismissing the complaint has considered the definition of workmen as
contained in section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act although what
was relevant was the definition of an employee under section 3(13) of
the BIR Act. On the basis of some prima facie findings the Labour
Court has dismissed the complaint. The Industrial Court has rightly
restored the complaint and permitted the parties to lead evidence in
that behalf.
4. As regards the issue of documents being produced, the Labour
Court has not considered which documents the Petitioners want the
Bank to produce at the enquiry or their relevance at all. It has instead
proceeded on the footing that it should not be an instrument to stall
the proceedings before the enquiry officer. This finding of the Labour
Court must be set aside. It was the duty of the Labour Court to
consider whether the documents sought by the petitioners were
relevant before dismissing the application. The petitioners are not
asking that the enquiry should be stayed endlessly but that it should be
conducted after the Bank produces certain documents on record.
5. The issue as to whether the enquiry should be conducted in
Marathi cannot be determined on whether prejudice would be caused
to the employees if it is conducted in English. The employees had
requested the enquiry officer to conduct the proceedings in Marathi
and to record the proceedings in the same language. The standing
orders require the same to be conducted either in English, Hindi or
Marathi. It is the choice of the employees concerned as to language in
which the enquiry should be conducted and the proceedings should be
recorded. Mr.Rele has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of
P.V.Rane
407-LPA-43OF2011.DOC
Shashikant M. Sable vs. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. & anr., 2008 (119) FLR
537 to submit that the proceedings can always be recorded in English.
However the facts in that case were different. The Defence
Representative was well versed in English and had conducted the cross-
examination in English. The workman had participated in the enquiry
without protest although the proceedings were recorded in English. In
the present case since the employees had requested at the first instance
that the proceedings should be conducted and recorded in Marathi, the
enquiry officer ought to have abided by that request.
6. The impugned orders are set aside. The Labour Court shall
consider the exhibit U2 afresh.
7. The Labour Court shall decide the issue as to whether the
petitioners are employees as defined u/s 3(13) of the BIR Act as a
preliminary issue before considering the application for interim relief in
the matter. The issue must be decided within three months from today.
The interim application shall be considered within a period of two
weeks thereafter in case it is found that the Petitioners are employees
u/s 3(13) of the BIR Act. Till then, the enquiry proceedings against the
petitioners will be stayed.
8. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly."
3. The present appeal was admitted by an order dated 12 July 2011 passed by
the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. An order of the even date was passed on the
Civil Application whereby the Division Bench was of the opinion that the
departmental inquiry ought not to have been halted and thus permitted the
appellants to proceed with the departmental inquiry. The relevant paragraphs are
required to be noted which read thus:
"2. We have heard both sides. In our view, when the departmental
inquiry initiated against the respondents is in connection with serious
irregularities and when both the Courts declined to grant interim relief,
the learned Single Judge should not have granted such interim relief by
which further departmental inquiry proceedings are stayed. In our view,
considering the question of balance of convenience, in case the
respondents succeed, they may be compensated by way of monetary
compensation. As against that, if the complaint is dismissed, the loss
which the appellants may suffer cannot be compensated. Considering
the same, the order passed by the learned single Judge is stayed during
the pendency of the appeal."
P.V.Rane
407-LPA-43OF2011.DOC
4. We are informed by Mr. Pai that the departmental inquiry was accordingly
undertaken which resulted into an order of dismissal being passed against the
respondents. Such order of dismissal was not challenged by the respondents.
5. In this view of the matter, the proceedings of Letters Patent Appeal have
become infructuous. It stands disposed of.
6. Pending Civil Application would not survive. It is accordingly disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
P.V.Rane
