✦ Bombay High Court · 07 Aug 2012

Ahmednagar District Central Co-operative v. Ahmednagar District Co-operative Bank

Writ Petition No. 590 of 2012R M BORDE3 min read

Case at a glance

Key paragraphs

  • Para 22. Perused the advertisement dated 5-9-2011 issued by the bank. The bank proposes to make appointment in respect of 192 vacancies from clerical cadre and is desirous of filling in other 64 vacancies. Grievance made in complaint 2 wp590.12 by respondent is in respect of…

Judgment

Mr. R. N. Dhorde, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. V. Natu, advocate for respondent. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 7th AUGUST, 2012. PER COURT :

1.

Petitioner is raising exception to the order passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar, on 14-11-2011 in Complaint (ULP) No. 66/2011 whereby petitioner/bank is directed not to make any recruitment as proposed pursuant to advertisement dt. 5-9-2011 during the pendency of complaint, without considering the stand of the union and the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

2.

Perused the advertisement dated 5-9-2011 issued by the bank. The bank proposes to make appointment in respect of 192 vacancies from clerical cadre and is desirous of filling in other 64 vacancies. Grievance made in complaint 2 wp590.12 by respondent is in respect of change in the mode of selection and making appointment by the bank. It is the contention of complainant that the employer cannot be permitted to deviate from the settled mode of recruitment and make appointment on the basis of directives issued by the NABARD or any other official from the Co-operation department. Bank is expected to observe provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, if it proposes to make change in the staffing pattern and the mode of appointment. Objection raised by complainant / union is required to be dealt with by the Labour Court, considering the merits of the contentions and after extending an opportunity of hearing to the employer.

There are number of vacancies to be filled in and day to day working of the bank is hampered because of failure of the bank to make fresh recruitment of employees. Interest of the employer and the employees / union can be safeguarded by issuing appropriate directions. It is the contention of petitioner / bank that the whole process of recruitment of employees in pursuance to issuance of advertisement is complete and orders could not be issued because of the interlocutory directions issued by the Industrial Court. Interest of the complainant can be safe-guarded by directing bank to keep 45 vacancies and not to recruit employees against those vacancies from clerical cadre until disposal of complaint. According to the union, there are about 45 eligible employees who can stake their claim on promotional post from clerical cadre. So far as the vacancies declared by the employer as per advertisement 3 wp590.12 dated 5-9-2011 are concerned (except 45 vacancies from clerical cadre), those can be filled in subject to pre-condition that the employer shall intimate the newly recruited employees that their appointment shall be subject to final adjudication of the complaint (ULP) No.

66/2011. Appointment of employees in pursuance to the advertisement dated 5-9-2011 shall be subject to final adjudication of the complaint pending before the labour Court. All the contentions raised in the petition by respective parties are specifically kept open. The labour Court shall decide the pending complaint as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of the year 2012. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE

3.

of.

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 07 Aug 2012. The bench was R M BORDE.

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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Writ Petition No. 590 of 2012). ← Search more judgments