Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh, Solapur v. The Pandharpur Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd
Case at a glance
Outcome
Partly allowed
revision is partly allowed
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. It is seen that all along when review applications came to be filed, the stand of the petitioner was that it is not maintainable. However, this objection raised by the petitioner was not considered at any RMA wp3815-09.sxw 4 point of time. In my…
Judgment
Shri. S.M. Dharap i/b Mrs. Anjali N. Helekar for the petitioner Smt. Meena H. Dohi for the respondent P.C.: CORAM : Smt. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : 8th September, 2009
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner union and the learned counsel for the respondent bank.
Rule. By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
Being aggrieved mainly by the order dated 30th November, 2007 passed by the Industrial Court, Solapur in Review Application (BIR) 1 of 2006, this petition has been preferred. The Review application was filed in respect of order dated 26th April, 2006 in revision application no. 1 of 2003.
Operative part
The genesis of these orders is found in reference no. 6 of 2001. In RMA wp3815-09.sxw 2 reference no. 6 of 2001 under Section 86-CC of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 which was pending before the Wage Board, the petitioner union submitted an application for interim relief. The said application for interim relief was allowed granting all employees rise of Rs. 700/- effective from 1st September, 2001. Against the said order, revision Application no. 1 of 2003 came to be filed by the respondent bank. An application for stay (Ex. C-2) on the interim relief was also filed by the bank. It may be stated here that on account of Reference No. 6 of 2001, a number of revisions, interim relief applications as well as Review applications came to be filed. The stand of the petitioner in respect of the review applications was that the review application is not maintainable. From order dated 29th April, 2003, it appears that Ex. C-2 was disposed of and and Revision Application No. 1 of 2003 was to be placed for final disposal. However, order dated 4th December, 2004 shows that it is passed under Ex. C-2 in Revision Application No. 1 of 2003. However, the order mentions that the revision is partly allowed. This would show that in fact the order is passed in the Revision application and the Revision was finally RMA wp3815-09.sxw 3 disposed of by the said order. However, if order dated 26th April, 2006 is perused, it shows that by the said order, Revision Application No. 1 of 2003 is dismissed. It prima facie appears that there is some confusion in these matters.
It may be stated here that against the order dated 4th December, 2004, the bank filed review application under Section 95 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 which was marked as Ex. C-14. The petitioner filed a reply (Ex. U-4) raising objection regarding maintainability of Ex. C-14 under Section 95 of the B.I.R. Act. According to the petitioner, such review application was not maintainable under Section 95 of the B.I.R. Act. Said review application came to be allowed but the point regarding maintainability under Section 95 was not decided by the Industrial Court. Therefore, the respondent bank filed another application under Section 95 of B.I.R. Act. This application was against the order dated 26th April, 2006.
It is seen that all along when review applications came to be filed, the stand of the petitioner was that it is not maintainable. However, this objection raised by the petitioner was not considered at any RMA wp3815-09.sxw 4 point of time. In my view, it would be appropriate that the petitioner is allowed to agitate this objection before the Industrial Court and the objection raised by the petitioner be considered by the Industrial Court. In the result, rule is made absolute in following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 30th November, 2007 at Exhibit K to the Writ Petition is set aside. (ii) The petitioner union to file its reply to the Review application (BIR) No. 1 of 2006 as regards the maintainability thereof within two weeks from the date of this order. (iii) The Industrial Court, Solapur to hear parties as regards the said Review Application (BIR) NO. 1 of 2006 and dispose of the same by 31st December, 2009. (iv) By way of interim arrangement, the order of the Industrial Court dated 28th April, 2006 on the Notice at Exhibit "J" page 75 to the Writ Petition shall continue to operate during the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Court in Review Application (BIR) No. 1 of 2006. (v) R & P to be sent back. Office to send the Writ to the Industrial RMA wp3815-09.sxw 5 Court immediately. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. (vii) Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J) RMA wp3815-09.sxw
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: revision is partly allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
CC of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 — s. 86; Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 — s. 95.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 08 Sep 2009. The bench was V K TAHILRAMANI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.