1

906wp5243.21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

906 WRIT PETITION NO.5243 OF 2021

TUSHAR VINAYAKRAO GAVHANE

VERSUS

M/S LOKVIKAS NAGAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD AURANGABAD

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Thombare S.S. h/f Mr.Karad Murlidhar S.

...

AND

907 WRIT PETITION NO.5244 OF 2021

ASHWINI DEVIDASRAO ADHANE

VERSUS

M/S LOKVIKAS NAGAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD AURANGABAD THR ITS

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND

908 WRIT PETITION NO.5264 OF 2021

CHAYA BHIKAN KACHOLE

VERSUS

LOKVIKAS NAGAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD. THR ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE

OFFICER

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR , J.

Date :- 24^th March, 2021.

P. C. :

1.

Heard the learned counsels for the petitioners.

2.

The challenge in these petitions is to the orders passed by the

Industrial Court, on 17th February, 2021, in Revision Petition Nos. (ULP) No.

38 of 2020, (ULP) No. 41 of 2020 and (ULP) No. 33 of 2020, whereby the

Industrial Court dismissed the Revision Petitions, preferred by the petitioners

herein, against the orders dated 2^nd December, 2020 passed by the Labour

Court on the applications for interim relief (Exh. U-2) in the complaint (ULP)

2

906wp5243.21

No. 34 of 2020, (ULP) No.44 of 2020 and (ULP) No. 46 of 2020, whereby, the

prayer of the respective petitioners herein for the reinstatement till the fnal

disposal of the complaints came to be rejected.

3.

Mr. Tushar, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5243 of 2021 came

to be appointed as an ‘Ofcere with the respondent Bank, with efect from 6^th

November, 2018. He was made permanent with efect from 1^st February,

2020, by order dated 3^rd February, 2020. Ms. Ashwani and Mrs. Chhayya, the

petitioners in Writ Petition No. 5244 of 2021 and Writ Petition No. 5264 of

2021 respectively, were appointed as ‘Clerkse with efect from 9^th November,

2018, and 6^th November, 2018 and permanency was conferred on them with

efect from 1^st February, 2020.

4.

The services of the petitioners were, however, terminated by

order dated 7th November, 2020, solely on the basis of the letter dated 4th

November, 2020, issued by the Commissioner and Registrar of Co-Operative

Societies Pune, whereby, it was directed that the appointments of employees

who were recruited by the respondent -Bank in the recruitment process,

2018, be cancelled.

5.

The petitioners contend that the said action of the respondent-

Bank is legally unsustainable. The petitioners, thus, fled the above numbered

complaints before the Labour Courts, wherein, interim-relief in the nature of

reinstatement was sought.

6.

The interim relief was refused as it would amount to granting the

fnal relief as the legal position is crystallieed to the efect that the

3

906wp5243.21

reinstatement by way of interim relief is not permissible. The Industrial Court

declined to interfere with the orders passed by the Labour Court.

7.

No fault can be found with the orders passed by the Labour and

Industrial Court. Grant of interim relief of reinstatement, at this stage, would

amount to granting the main relief in the complaints.

8.

In the aforesaid backdrop, the learned counsel for the petitioners

submits that the interest of the petitioners, who are out of the employment,

on account of unsustainable order passed by the respondent, would be

served, if the Labour Court is directed to hear and decide the complaints fled

by the petitioners, expeditiously.

9.

Having regard to the nature of the impugned order, which

singularly draws support and sustenance from the communication of the

Commissioner and Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Pune, it appears

expedient that the complaints be heard and decided expeditiously. The

controversy seems to be in a narrow compass.

10.

In view of the above, the petitions stand disposed of with a

request to the Labour Court to hear and decide the aforesaid complaints, as

expeditiously as possible, and pr