1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 669 OF 2009 Limbaji Baburao Shinde } Age : 51 Years, Occ. : Service, } R/o : Andhora, Post: Khasapuri, } Tq. Paranda, Dist. : Osmanabad. } .... PETITIONER V E R S U S Osmanabad District Central Co-Operative } Bank Ltd., Head Office, Osmanabad, } Through its General Manager, } Dist. Osmanabad. } .... RESPONDENT Mr. K.A.Kadam, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for Respondent. [ CORAM : S.S.SHINDE, J. ] DATE : 01/09/2009 JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ Petition takes exception to the Order dated 22/8/2008 passed by the Member of the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) (Old No. 1 of 2003) New No. 425 of 2004. 2 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the application which was filed by the petitioner before the Respondent no. 1 was for allowing him to retire voluntarily, however, the petitioner no. 1 instead of entertaining his prayer for voluntary retirement, treated the application as resignation and accepted the same in its meeting on 31/7/2002. The respondent no. 1, bank, by passing resolution in its administrative meeting on 31/7/2002, has treated the application of voluntary retirement as his resignation and sanctioned the same on 31/8/2002. Learned counsel, therefore, would submit that when the application filed by the petitioner was praying for voluntary retirement, there was no question of any resignation by him and, therefore, the illegal resolution passed by the respondent no. 1 was questioned before the Industrial Court, Latur. According to learned counsel, the Industrial Court has not properly adjudicated the issue involved and did not appreciate the contentions raised by the petitioner and erroneously dismissed complaint filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the Industrial Court has given findings that the action of the respondent no. 1 Committee to treat application of the petitioner as a resignation, is not proper. However, according to learned counsel, Industrial Court has rightly held that to agitate same issue, remedy lies somewhere else before some other forum and, therefore, Industrial Court declined to entertain said prayer of the petitioner. Learned 3 counsel further submitted that the petitioner herein has already accepted the benefits available to him in pursuant to the resolution of the respondent no. 1 accepting his resignation and, therefore, now having been availed all benefits, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the said resolution was illegal. Therefore, learned counsel would submit that the order passed by the Member, Industrial Court is perfectly justified in law and same does not call for interference by this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent and I am of the view that the Order passed by the Industrial Court does not call for any interference by this Court under Writ jurisdiction. The findings recorded by the Industrial Court are not perverse in any manner. The Industrial Court has not taken a note that, to entertain application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner at the time of filing such application was on leave and in the leave period, as per voluntary retirement rules, he was not entitled for the voluntary retirement benefit. The Court has further observed that the complainant/petitioner has placed on file the Voluntary Retirement Scheme Rules at Exh. U-2 and it is observed in Rule 9 that the employees on leave can not apply for such benefit unless they report on work. The learned Judge has also taken a note of the fact that the petitioner herein proceeded on long leave for the period of 2 years and 4 8 months as admitted by him in cross examination was not entitled for the benefits of the voluntary retirement scheme in view of the relevant rules. The Member, Industrial Court in paragraph 10 has also came to the conclusion that the respondent – Bank has proceeded to terminate the services of the complainant w.e.f. 31/8/2002 illegally and in breach of the terms of contract of service. However, in paragraph 11, the Court has observed that the Industrial Court can not redress the grievance of the petitioner so far termination is concerned for want of jurisdiction as Labour Court in as much as this matter pertains to termination of services. 5. On careful perusal of the findings of the Industrial Court, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Hence, Writ Petition is dismissed. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE knp/WP669.09