Writ Petition No. 4991 of 2025 · Bombaybench High Court · 2025
Case Details
Ethape( 1 ) 908-WP-4991-2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD908 WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2025The Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd JalnaVERSUSShivaji Sakharam SalveWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4360 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4995 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4996 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4999 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4993 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4997 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4994 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5009 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5000 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5001 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5007 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5010 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5003 OF 2025WITH
Facts
Ethape( 2 ) 908-WP-4991-2025WRIT PETITION NO. 5005 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4998 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5006 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5008 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5004 OF 2025WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 4992 OF 2025...Mr. Sambhaji Subhashrao Tope, Advocate for the Petitioner.Mr. Anand Deshpande a/w Mr. Parth Salunke a/w Mr. Sudhir Chavanand Mr. Adesh Watane, Advocates for Respondents. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:9th MAY 2025PC :-1.Heard the learned Advocate for the respective parties.2.With the consent of the parties, the petitions are taken up for finaldisposal at the stage of admission. Since the common question isinvolved in all these writ petitions and the impugned orders are alsoidentical, all the petitions are taken up together 3.The petitioner-bank has approached this Court challenging the Ethape( 3 ) 908-WP-4991-2025order dated 31st January 2025 passed by the learned Industrial Court,Jalna on an applications Exh.C-33 in complaint ULP No.205/2019,Exh.C-35 in complaint ULP No.189/2019, Exh.C-23 in complaint ULPNo.49/2021, Exh.C-32 in complaint ULP No.196/2019, Exh.C-32 incomplaint ULP No.202/2019, Exh.C-30 in complaint ULP No.237/2019,Exh.C-34 in complaint ULP No.192/2019, Exh.C-34 in complaint ULPNo.200/2019, Exh.C-28 in complaint ULP No.183/2019, Exh.C-39 incomplaint ULP No.188/2019, Exh.C-43 in complaint ULP No.206/2019,Exh.C-32 in complaint ULP No.184/2019, Exh.C-23 in complaint ULPNo.235/2019, Exh.C-28 in complaint ULP No.197/2019, Exh.C-26 incomplaint ULP No.19/2020, Exh.C-26 in complaint ULP No.236/2019,Exh.C-26 in complaint ULP No.229/2019, Exh.C-25 in complaint ULPNo.218/2019, Exh.C-35 in complaint ULP No.203/2019, Exh.C-28 incomplaint ULP No.204/2019.4.By way of impugned order, the learned Member, Industrial Courthas rejected the applications of the petitioner seeking addition of Unionas necessary party in the proceeding. Ethape( 4 ) 908-WP-4991-20255.The respondent/complainant in all these petitions are the retiredemployee of petitioner-bank, who retired on different dates. Theseemployees approached the Industrial Court praying for payment ofdifference of amount of dearness allowances since March 2010 till thedate of retirement/superannuation alongwith interest @ 18%. The ULPcomplaints came to be filed in the year 2019. 6.In the proceeding in the ULP complaints, now the evidence isrecorded. The complaints were placed for final hearing. The claimantsadvanced the argument. At that stage, the petitioner-bank filed anapplication for addition of one Union namely, Co-operative BankEmployee Union as necessary party. It is stated in the application thatthe said union is the only union recognized under Bombay IndustrialRegulation Act, 1946. Since that is only a union recognized by the bank,the agreement with settlement was entered into with the said Union. Itis further case that, on 7th May 2019, the settlement/agreement came tobe entered between the bank and the union in which it is agreed that themembers of the union have relinquished their rights to receive dearness Ethape( 5 ) 908-WP-4991-2025allowances from March 2010 till 31st March 2019. It is in that view, theunion is necessary party. Prayer was made to add the said union asnecessary party. 7.The respondent filed the reply on the said application. It is thestand of the respondents that they were never member of any unionduring the service tenure. Therefore, no settlement or agreement isbinding upon them. The so-called settlement arrived at between theunion and the petitioner-bank is dated 7th May 2019 i.e. after retirementof the complainant. There is no question of the said settlement beingbinding upon the employees. The application is filed only to prolong theproceeding. When the complaints were posted for final arguments, theapplication was thus opposed. 8.The trial Court on considering that the application is filed atbelated stage when it is reserved for argument of the parties. Since2019, no such application was preferred. Though it was within theknowledge of the petitioner-bank, there is not explanation as to why thesaid settlement was not produced on record. The dearness allowances is Ethape( 6 ) 908-WP-4991-2025claimed since 2010 till the date of retirement which is before the date ofsettlement in many cases for this Court and rejected the application. 9.The learned Advocate Mr. Tope appearing for petitioner in all thesepetitions, vehemently argued that the Union sought to be added as aparty is the only recognized union by the bank under the BombayIndustrial Relations Act, 1946. The settlement between bank and theunion is, therefore, binding on all the employees of the bank. Noemployee can take a defence that merely because he is not a member ofthe union, the settlement is not binding upon him. There was nointention of the bank to deliberately prolong the proceeding. On thecontrary, though the employees are claiming the amount from 2010,they have approached to the Court in 2019 for the first time. Thelearned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of thisCourt in the case of Ambika Silk Mills Company Ltd. And Anr. Vs.Maharashtra General Kamgar Union and Ors.1 (para 13). He thus praysfor allowing the writ petitions. 11998 (2) Bom. C.R. 148
Legal Reasoning
Ethape( 8 ) 908-WP-4991-2025sympathy needs to be shown to the petitioner-bank. 12.In the case of Ambika Silk Mills Company (supra), this Courtconsidered the provisions of Section 27-A and Section 30 of the BombayIndustrial Relations Act. This Court finds that since on the date ofsettlement, the complainant had already retired. There is no question ofsettlement even, if any, to be binding upon them prima facie. It is for theCourt to consider the same. 13.So far as the judgment in the case of Ramesh Kundanmal (supra),the respondents have rightly relied upon the judgment. It is held that thecomplainant is dominus litis and, therefore, he cannot force to join anyparty to the proceeding. Party needs to be shown to be necessary or aproper party to the suit. Addition of the respondent would enlarge thescope in the suit. This court finds that, in the present case also it is notshown as to how the union is necessary party. The bank has also failed toprove bonafide in making the application and on the delay and laches inmaking the application. For all these reasons, this court finds thatpetition deserves to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected. While Ethape( 9 ) 908-WP-4991-2025issuing notice, this Court had directed the petitioner bank to depositRs.5,000/- in each petition, to show bonafide. Now the amount isdeposited in the office of this Court. The respondents are at liberty towithdraw the said amount without requiring any formal application. 14.With this, writ petitions stand dismissed. 15.The trial Court to decide the complaints as expeditiously aspossible. 16.The petitioner shall not seek any adjournments and to argue thecase on the next date. 17.Parties to appear before the trial Court on 15th May 2025. 18.The respondents/complainants are entitled to withdraw theamount deposited in this Court without requiring any formalapplication. 19.Parties to act an authenticated copy of this order. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
Arguments
Ethape( 7 ) 908-WP-4991-202510.Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the Respondents vehementlyargued that it was never a case of the petitioner-bank that there issettlement between the parties. In the written statement, there is nowhisper about this. It is only when the learned Judge is due to transferin the month of June, this application is moved. The matter is forargument. It shows that in December 2024, argument of complainant’sside is over. The respondent sought many adjournments for argumentand thereafter filed this application. This application is malafide and isrightly dismissed. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in the caseof Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation of GreaterBombay2. He thus prays for dismissing the writ petitions. 11.Heard the parties. From the facts stated above, it is clear that theapplication is made at the fag-end of the trial. The petitioner-bank hasappeared in the proceeding in 2019 itself. No defence is taken about thesettlement. Many of the employees have already retired except in thecase of Kadaji Tolaji Yetale [WP/5005/2025], who retired on 31st May2019 i.e. after the settlement. Thus, on this fact, it is clear that no21992 (2) SCC 524