1 wp-5791-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5791 OF 2010 Shri Sharanappa Kalyanappa Kadganchi .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents Mr. S.M. Dharap i/by Mrs. Anjali Helekar for petitioner. Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. Niranjan Shimpi i/by mr. Suhas S. Inamdar for respondent nos.3 and 4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. NOVEMBER 15, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Dharap, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Rule. 2 wp-5791-10 3. Mr. Sonawane, the learned AGP waives service for respondent nos.1 and 2 and Mr. Shimpi the learned counsel waives service for respondent nos.3 and 4. Affidavits-in-reply have been filed by Shri Vidyadhar Mane, Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, South Solapur as well as Shri Madhukar Bhinge who is the Member of the Liquidation Committee of the respondent – bank. Hence the petition is heard finally. 4. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of dismissal dated 1/9/1996 and, therefore, the same order came to be challenged by him in Complaint (ULP) No. 156 of 1996 filed before the Labour Court at Solapur. The said complaint was allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 2/2/2001 and the termination order was set aside by directing the bank to pay the back-wages from 1/9/1996 along with relief of continuity in service and other consequential benefits. This order came to be challenged by the Liquidator and President of the Board of Liquidation for the bank in Revision (ULP) No. 24 of 2001 filed before the Industrial Court at Solapur and after hearing both the parties the learned Member of the Industrial Court was pleased to allow the revision by his Judgment and Order dated 3 wp-5791-10 25/6/2009. The order passed by the Labour Court on 2/2/2001 was set aside and Complaint (ULP) No. 156 of 1996 was restored and remanded for a fresh decision. 5. The petitioner, by way of an abundant precaution, submitted an application before the respondent no.2 under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act so as to seek leave to implead respondent nos.3 and 4 as the additional respondents before the Labour Court and the said application has been rejected by respondent no.2 by the impugned order dated 25/3/2010. 6. The respondents by their affidavits-in-reply have opposed the petition and we are surprised to say the least. It was respondent nos.3 and 4 who approached the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No. 24 of 2001 and challenged the order passed by the Labour Court and the revision has been allowed solely on the ground that respondent nos.3 and 4 were not heard and the order has been passed by the Labour Court in the absence of the said respondents. The Industrial Court, in this regard, relied upon the judgments of this court in the case of Amravati Growers Co-operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs. Sheshrao K. Ingle and ors. [1992 (1) CLR 809] and 4 wp-5791-10 Sadashiv K. Sutar Vs. Kolhapur Zilla Janata Sahakari Bank Ltd. and anr. [2004(2) Bom. C.R. 111]. 7. On the face of the reasoning set out by the Industrial Court while allowing the revision application, it was, in fact, necessary for respondent nos.3 and 4 to appear before the Labour Court and apply for being impleaded as the additional respondents i.e. respondent nos.3 and 4 and more so when they had themselves invited the judgment from the Industrial Court. They did not do so and when the petitioner filed the application under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act before the respondent no.2, they opposed the application. We record our anguish and refrain from saying anything further. Mr. Dharap rightly relied upon the decision of this court (DB) in the case of Waman Vyenkatesh Ruikar vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune and ors. [2002 III CLR 981]. The reasoning set out by the Industrial Court itself supported the application filed by the petitioner before the respondent no.2 and that ought to have been allowed. The respondent no.2 was required to decide the application filed under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operatives Societies Act on the basis of the order passed by the Industrial Court and it was not permissible for the said 5 wp-5791-10 respondent to dwell into the merits of the action of termination or otherwise which, in fact, is a subject matter to be decided in the pending complaint by the Labour Court. As the respondent-bank has already been liquidated and closed, the relief for reinstatement does not survive, but, at the same time, the Labour Court would be competent to decide the legality, justifiability and reasonableness of the termination order and the issue of granting consequential benefits (monetary). We are, therefore, satisfied that the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Hence, this petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 25/3/2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Labour Court is directed to hear and decide Complaint (ULP) No. 156 of 1996 as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st January, 2011. The parties to appear before the Labour Court on 22/11/2010 so as to proceed with the complaint on merits. 9. Rule is made absolute accordingly and we direct respondent no.4 to pay costs quantified at Rs.1000/- to the petitioner within four weeks from today. All the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending 6 wp-5791-10 complaint are left open. 10. Writ to go forthwith. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)