1 WP No.10922/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10922/2010 The Chief Executive Officer, Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd., Main Road, Osmanabad, Tq and Dist. Osmanabad. - PETTIONER VERSUS Sujata Pandurang Chavan Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Service, R/o Diggi Road, Omerga, Tq. Omerga, Dist.Osmanabad. - RESPONDENT ***** Mr.A.N.Irpatgire Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.A.V.Patil, Advocate AGP for Respondent. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 17th NOVEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1) Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2) The Bank feels aggrieved by the order dated 16th January, 2007 passed by Learned Judge of the Labour Court, Latur, subsequent order dated 23.3.2010 by the very same Labour Court to invoke jurisdiction in terms of Section 31(2) of 2 WP No.10922/2010 M.R.T.U. And P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, whereby the request of setting aside the ex parte order dated 16.1.2007 was made. The Bank also feels aggrieved by the order in Revision (ULP) No.17/2010 dated 11.8.2010. 3) The Respondent was an employee with the Bank. The Bank charged the respondent with the allegations of misappropriation and consequently his services were terminated by order dated 28.12.2005. The respondent challenged her termination and sought reinstatement. According to her, the Bank indulged in unfair labour practice, misused the powers and the order of dismissal is without cogent reasons and record. The challenge by the respondent before the Labour Court at Latur, referred above, was attended to by the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to file written statement from 28.4.2006. The learned Judge accommodated the petitioner bank to comply such written statement, however, it did not file. On 8th January, 2007, Affidavit- in-Chief was tendered by the respondent. The matter was adjourned to 12th January, 2007 for cross-examination by the counsel of petitioner. The Counsel for petitioner moved an application seeking time. The learned Judge said the written statement to be filed up to 16th January, 2007 otherwise the Court to proceed. Failure on the 3 WP No.10922/2010 part of the Bank to file the written statement made the learned Judge to pass the impugned order. 4) There cannot be quarrel on the lethargy, laxity and slackness demonstrated by the petitioner Bank in attending the matter. However, it equally warrants that the learned Judge, when desired to deal with the matter in the forced circumstances against the litigant, to answer the question involved on merits. There is not a single line in the order of the learned Judge of the Labour Court to indicate as to what way he has appreciated the assertions of the respondent/employee about unfair labour practice on the part of the petitioner Bank or the charges levelled by the petitioner bank of mis-conduct or misappropriation against the respondent/employee. The learned Judge was certainly influenced by the conduct of the bank, particularly from 28.4.2006 till 16.1.2007 in not attending and prosecuting the matter vigorously and diligently. However, the basic questions involved in the lis are not answered. Consequently, the order will be certainly in terms of ex parte decision, requiring action under Section 31(2) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The subsequent exercise by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, not entertaining the same, is again without dealing 4 WP No.10922/2010 with the theme involved in the matter. 5) The learned Revisional Court, took another recourse in the matter by observing that it is not necessary to invite a litigant on every date in the proceeding. This should have been taken to its logical end by the learned Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court also did not venture to ensure as to whether or not the order of the learned Judge of the Labour court dated 16.1.2007 answered all legal questions. 6) Be that, as it may; the fact remains, the laxity and protraction of the matter at the instance of the petitioner Bank is writ-large. However, since the petitioner/Bank was not heard on merits, the matter is remanded to the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Latur, by setting aside the order dated 16th January, 2007 and subsequent order. 7) The learned Judge, considering the age and the issue involved, shall expeditiously dispose off the same up to 28th February, 2012. The petitioner/Bank shall not seek unreasonable adjournments before the learned Judge. If the Written Statement is not yet tendered/filed, the petitioner/Bank shall, on the first date of such 5 WP No.10922/2010 appearance, tender/file the same before the learned Judge of the Labour Court. 8) Since the laxity and slackness, as referred above, is apparent, the petitioner/Bank shall pay consolidated amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) to the respondent/employee within a month from today which shall be condition precedent. 9) The parties to appear before the learned Judge of the Labour Court at Latur on 29th November, 2011. 10) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/