1 W.P.No.9839.10 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9839 OF 2010 Solapur Nagari Audyogic Sahakari Bank Niyamit ... Petitioner v/s Sahakari Bank Karmachari Sangh ... Respondent Mrs.Meena Doshi for the petitioner. Mrs.Anjali Helekar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: 1. The petition has been preferred against two orders of the Industrial Court, one in Reference (BIR) No.1 of 2008 and the other in Reference (BIR) No.1 of 2009. 2. These orders have been passed on an application for interim relief filed by the petitioner in both references. In the application filed in Reference (BIR) No.1 of 2008, the petitioner bank sought interim relief to the effect that it should be permitted to reduce the wages in order to lower the cost of management as directed by the Reserve Bank of 2 W.P.No.9839.10 India. It was pleaded that wages formed a major part of the management costs and therefore it was necessary to reduce the salary payable to the employees in order to implement the directions of the Reserve Bank of India. In an application filed in Reference (BIR) No.1 of 2009, the Bank sought interim relief to the extent that it be allowed to reduce the total strength of the workmen. Both these applications have been rejected by the Industrial Court. 3. I have perused copies of the impugned orders and I find that there is no need to interfere with the same. The contention that because of the Reserve Bank of India’s directions issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 on 6.1.2011, it is necessary to reduce the salary of the employees and the strength of the employees, cannot be accepted at this stage. The Reserve Bank of India has stated that the management cost should be reduced. However, the expenditure incurred on the salary to the employees has been specifically permitted. Reduction in the number of employees has also been rightly refused by the Industrial Court at the interim stage. 4. In these circumstances, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 3 W.P.No.9839.10 5. Writ petition rejected. 6. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the two references are expedited. They shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case within one year from today. The Industrial Court while deciding the references shall not be influenced by the observations made in the impugned orders. ..... 4 W.P.No.9839.10