1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2009 IN IN IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.53 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.53 OF 2009 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.53 OF 2009 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.3998 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3998 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.3998 OF 2008 Narendra Balkrishna Pimputkar .. Applicant vs. ACE Co-operative Bank Ltd. .. Respndents Mr.C.R.Naidu i/b M/s.M/s.C.R.Naidu and Co. for the applicant Mr.B.V.Bukhari for the respondents CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. Smt.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE: 5TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 5TH MARCH, 2009 DATE: 5TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. It is a matter of record that the appeal preferred against the order of the learned single Judge came to be admitted after the parties were heard in the matter and, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the respondent to have proceeded further and impose punishment on the appellant during the pendency of the appeal as the appellant impugned the order of the 2 learned single Judge which permits the respondent to impose another punishment than what has been quashed by the Industrial Tribunal in revision i.e. reversal as it was contrary to the certified standing order. 3. Unless the matter is finally heard it was not proper on the part of the respondent to have passed the order dated 7.2.2009 and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to pass order in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads as under: "(b) That pending hearing and final disposal of the Appeal the respondent Bank be directed not to give effect or in any manner take any further steps and/or take the aforesaid order/letter No.ACE/P & A/NBP/1616/07/09 dated 7th February, 2009 in the service record of the Appellant." 4. We make it further clear that parties to maintain statusquo in the matter as on the date this court admitted the appeal i.e. 5.2.2009 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and though this court did not pass any interim order staying the effect and operation of the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, in fairness, respondent ought not 3 to have exercised his right by imposing punishment. 5. Civil Application disposed of accordingly. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.) (Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.)