Lsp IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1495 of 2008 The Koregaon Cooperative Peoples Bank Limited, Koregaon Now merged with Janaseva Sahakari Bank Ltd., Pune & anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Sunil Mahadeo Barge ...Respondent Mr.S.S.Pakale for the Petitioners Mr. Nitin A.Kulkarnii for the Respondent CORAM CORAM CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATED DATED DATED : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 : 7th March, 2008 P.C. Heard Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel for the Petitioner Bank. 2. Rule. Mr.Kulkarni waive service for the Respondent employee. 3. By consent of parties the petition is taken up for final hearing forthwith. 4. This Petition arises from an inter-locutory order passed by the Labour Court at Satara on 10-4-2007 thereby allowing an application for interim-relief filed under Section 30(2) of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 (the Act for short) and confirmed by the Industrial Court at 2 Satara by dismissing Revision Application (ULP)No. 34/2007 on 21-11-2007. 5. As per the Petitioner, the Board of Directors had passed a Resolution on 5-2-2007 thereby regulating the repayments to the depositors, in view of the precarious financial condition the Bank was passing through. It was more particularly resolved that even in cases where the fixed deposit had not matured, instead of returning the entire deposited amount alongwith interest accrued, the amount would be returned in instalments of Rs. 500/- per week and in exceptional cases if the entire amount was required to be returned, the same shall not be done unless it was approved by the Chairman. In the name of the Respondent employee’s niece, an amount of Rs. 1,41,599/- was invested by way of fixed deposit for 77 days with the Petitioner Bank on 5-12-2006 and the deposit was to mature on 20-2-2007. The Respondent misappropriated and then returned the entire amount of Rs. 1,43,500/- and this act on his part was an act of gross misconduct thereby causing financial loss to the BanK and Bank also lost confidence in the employee. The Bank, therefore, dismissed his service by way of punishment as per the order dated 10-2-2007 but without issuing any show-cause notice and conducting a departmental enquiry as required under the Standing Orders applicable to the Bank. The employee, therefore, 3 approached the Labour Court in Complaint(ULP)No. 5/2007 filed under Section 28 read with Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act and challenged the order of dismissal and in the said complaint he filed an application for interim-relief which has been allowed as noted earlier. 6. The Labour Court held that prima-facie the Complainant made out a case of unfair labour practice on the part of the Bank in issuing the order of dismissal dated 10-2-2007 as no show-cause notice was issued, nor the departmental enquiry was conducted. Principles of natural justice were thus violated. The Labour Court also noted that the fixed deposit had matured and, therefore, there was no restriction legally enforceable in refunding the deposited amount. In the Revision Application the Industrial Court has agreed with the reasoning set out by the Labour Court and confirmed the order of interim-relief. 7. The order of interim-relief dated 10-4-2007 directs the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent employee in service during the pendency of the complaint. Mr. Pakale, the learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that under the guise of interim-relief, the final relief has been granted which is not permissible as per the Scheme of Section 30(2) of the Act. By referring to the Judgement of the Supreme Court in the 4 case of Motipur Sugar Factory (1965 II LLJ 162) Motipur Sugar Factory (1965 II LLJ 162) Motipur Sugar Factory (1965 II LLJ 162) and the subsequent Judgement in the case of Engineering Laghu Engineering Laghu Engineering Laghu Udyog Udyog Udyog Employees’ Union (2004 I LLJ 1105), Employees’ Union (2004 I LLJ 1105), Employees’ Union (2004 I LLJ 1105), Mr.Pakale submitted that the employer has the right to prove the charges before the Labour Court by leading evidence. This proposition runs into four pages and it appears that the said well settled position in law was not brought to the notice of the Courts below, however, it is equally right that if the employer seeks leave to conduct an enquiry before the Labour Court, in such a case, the employer will have to pay subsistence allowance as per the Standing Orders applicable till the enquiry is completed. At the sametime the enquiry should be completed within a fixed period, in the interest of both the parties. 8. Hence, this Petition succeeds and the same is hereby allowed partly. The impugned order passed by the Labour Court on 10-4-2007 and confirmed by the Industrial Court on 21-11-2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The employer is allowed to conduct an enquiry before the Labour Court by leading evidence so as to prove the charges on the basis of which the impugned dismissal order has been issued. The enquiry shall be conducted and completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 31st May, 2008. The Respondent employee shall be treated to be under suspension from the date of 5 the impugned dismissal order till the enquiry is completed or till 31st May, 2008 whichever is earlier. The Labour Court is also directed to hear and decide the complaint by 31st May, 2008. Both the parties have assured this Court that they will extend cooperation to decide the complaint within the stipulated period. The parties to appear before the Labour Court on 10th March, 2008. 9. Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. 10. Writ to go forthwith. The application filed by the employee at Exh. U-2 stands allowed partly in terms of the above order. [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.] [B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.]