1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 197/2011 (The Bank of Maharashtra Officers’ Organization V/s. The Union of India, Ministry of Finance, Dept of Financial Services and others.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 14.07.2011 1. Heard Advocates Mr. U. S. Dastane for petitioner, Mr. S. K. Mishra for Respondent No. 1, Mr. A. M. Ghare for Respondent No. 3, Mr. S. K. Pardhy for applicant-Intervenor in CAW 779/2011. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner-Trade Union enjoys necessary majority. It has accordingly forwarded the names of three representatives for their selection on the Board of Director’s of Respondent No. 3 – Bank. In CAW 1761/2011, petitioner has made a request that consideration of those names and process of actual nomination should be expedited. Learned Advocate Shri. S. K. Mishra, A.S.G.I., points out that they have received a copy of application yesterday and he will have to take instructions on the process to be followed. According to him, 2 respondent no. 1 has to consult respondent no. 2 and thereafter appropriate decision can be taken. He states that this will require sometime. 3. Advocate Mr. Ghare for respondent no. 3 points out that because of interim orders passed in the matter, representative of petitioner even today continues as a Director of Board of Respondent No. 3. 4. Advocate Mr. Pardhy for applicant-Intervenor in CAW 779/2011 contends that taking advantage of interim order passed by this Court, petitioner-Trade Union has mustered necessary majority, and therefore, have succeeded in forwarding the names of their representatives for nomination on Board of Directors. According to him in absence of such interim order the majority would not have been in favour of applicant-Intervenor. Advocate Shri. Dastane is disputing this position. 5. We find the fact that present petitioner is in majority today is not in dispute. How that majority is achieved can not be looked in to in this matter at this stage. Hence, we grant applicant-Intervenor leave to approach an appropriate Forum in accordance with law for redressal of this grievance. 6. As the representative of the petitioner continues even today, as its nominee on Board of Directors, we find that the 3 matter can be resolved by asking respondent no. 1 & 2 to expedite the consideration of proposal forwarded by present petitioner to respondent no. 3 Bank on 21.06.2011 and proposal forwarded by respondent no. 3 Bank to respondent no. 1 shall be considered by them as expeditiously as possible. If respondent no. 3 has not yet forwarded any proposal till this day the same shall be sent within period of two weeks from today with copy thereof to the petitioner. 7. The only contention pressed before this Court is about the entitlement of the petitioner to have its nominee on Board of Directors. The learned counsel has requested to keep other challenges open for appropriate consideration as and when occasion arises. Accordingly we keep other challenges open. 8. The respondent no. 1 shall in consultation with respondent no. 2 take appropriate decision in this respect by 31/12/2011. The interim orders passed by this Court on 09/03/2011 shall continue till appropriate orders in this respect passed by respondent no. 1 or by any other competent legal forum. 9. In view of these observations and directions CAW Nos. 779/2011 and 1761/2011 are allowed. The petitioner to add applicant as party Intervenor forthwith. 4 10. Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Punde