Writ Petition No. 1748 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
{1} wp1748-21.doc drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 2021 Yadav Yogaji Ingle Age – 44 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kasrali, Post – Kasrali, Taluka – Biloli, District - Nanded VERSUS PETITIONER The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded Through its Managing Director RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1890 OF 2021 PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Rajeshwar Madhavrao Hingole Age – 38 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kutubshahapurwadi, Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Balaji Sheshrao Khanapure Age – 39 years, Occ – Labour R/o Gawadgaon, Post – Ballur Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
Legal Reasoning
Shridhar Lahurao Biradar Age – 37 years, Occ -Labour R/o Khutmapur, Post – Hanegaon, Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Gorakshanath Raghunath Deshmukh Age – 38 years, Occ – Labour R/o Dhosani, Post – Kawalgaon Taluka – Degloor, District - Nanded Bhagwan Gangadhar Jalne Age – 44 years,Occ – Labour R/o Wazarga, Post – Vannali {2} wp1748-21.doc 6. 7. 8. 9. Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Rupesh Ranjeetrao Desai Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Degaon (B) Post – Degaon Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Sanjay Digambarrao Ingle Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Bhaktapur, Post – Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Shaikh Mainoddin Shaikh Jalalsab Age – 42 years, Occ – Labour R/o Devapur, Post – Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Anil Hulreddy Ardhe Age – 41 years Occ -Labour R/o Morkhel, Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded 10. Hanmant Baburao Birajdar Age – 39 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kathewadi,Post – Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded 11. Sanjay Laxmanrao Patil Age – 45 years, Occ – Labour R/o Shivbanagar, Degloor Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded 12. Mohammad Ahmadmiya Age – 43 years, Occ – Labour R/o Azad Colony, Degloor Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded VERSUS The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded Through its Managing Director RESPONDENT {3} wp1748-21.doc WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1891 OF 2021 Babu Kondiba Waghmare Age – 44 years, Occ – Labour R/o At Post Khatgaon, Taluka – Biloli, District - Nanded VERSUS PETITIONER The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded Through its Managing Director RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1892 OF 2021 PETITIONERS 1. 2. 3. 4. Tanaji Vyankatrao Hingole Age – 44 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kutubshahapurwadi, Post Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Manohar Manikrao Ingole Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Tupdal, Taluka – Mukhed, District – Nanded Shivaji Hanmantrao Wadekar (Patil) Age – 43 years, Occ -Labour R/o Bhokaskheda, Post – Kawalgaon Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded Bhagwat Venkatrao Aglawe Age – 38 years, Occ – Labour R/o Sangvi Bhadev, Post- Ambulga (BK) Taluka – Mukhed, District - Nanded VERSUS The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded RESPONDENT {4} wp1748-21.doc Through its Managing Director WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1893 OF 2021 Ramchandra Gangaram Male Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Shahapur, Taluka – Degloor District - Nanded VERSUS PETITIONER The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded Through its Managing Director RESPONDENT Mr. Vivek J. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondent ....... ....… [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 11 th JULY, 2023 JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties. 2. Since all these petitions raise similar question of law and fact, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. These petitions, filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the judgments and orders passed {5} wp1748-21.doc by Industrial Court, Jalna dated 1st April, 2005, thereby dismissing the complaints claiming permanancy, filed by the petitioners. 4. Since, there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petitions, learned advocate for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the extent of seeking directions to the respondent – Bank, in terms of section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that since the petitioners are retrenched and there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners restrict their prayer to the extent of seeking direction to the respondent – Bank that in case the Bank proposes to recruit any person in future, then the petitioners may be given an opportunity to compete and they may be given preference over other persons. 5. By filing reply, the respondent – Bank has opposed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits. It is contended that some of the petitioners have already approached this Court, challenging the same judgment and order, by filing writ petition No. 4436 of 2005, which is filed on behalf of 250 workmen / erstwhile employees of the Bank. A specific averment is made in the affidavit in reply that petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11 in writ petition No.1890 of 2021, sole {6} wp1748-21.doc petitioner in writ petition No.1891 of 2021, petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 in writ petition No. 1892 of 2021 and the sole petitioner in writ petition No. 1893 of 2021 are the petitioners in writ petition No. 4436 of 2005. It is further averred that the said petition is still pending in this Court. 7. Learned advocate for the respondent – Bank submits that there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. The complaint (ULP) was filed in the year 2001 and was dismissed in the year 2005 and the present petitions are filed in the year 2021. He further submits that the petitioners were working as daily wagers and hence, they cannot claim equitable relief, by relying on section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 6. Inordinate delay in filing present petitions is writ large on the face of record. The complaints seeking permanancy were filed by the petitioners in the year 2001 and those were dismissed in the year 2005. Present petitions are filed in the year 2021 challenging the order passed in the year 2005. It is also clear from the record that there is absolutely no explanation given by the petitioners for approaching this Court with inordinate delay. It also appears from the record that at the time of retrenchment, the petitioners were working as daily wagers. {7} wp1748-21.doc 7. It is evident from the record that delay of more than 16 years in filing these petitions is not explained by the petitioners. The only explanation given by them that since the petitioners are poor, they could not approach this Court at earlier point of time, is unacceptable and cannot be said to be sufficient for entertaining these petitions, which are filed after more than 16 years. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 10. If the respondent Bank proposes to fill in any post, it may consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible and qualified. 11. It is made clear that the above directions shall not operate in favour of petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11 in writ petition No.1890 of 2021, sole petitioner in writ petition No.1891 of 2021, petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 in writ petition No. 1892 of 2021 and the sole petitioner in writ petition No. 1893 of 2021, who are petitioners in writ petition No. 4436 of 2005. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE drp/wp1748-21.doc