IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3503 OF 2009 Jatish Janardan Khedekar ...Petitioner Vs. The Chiplun Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. ... Respondent --- Shri M.S. Topkar for Petitioner Shri S.S.Pukale i/b. Kirankumar Phakade for Respondent ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 16TH JUNE, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The Petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 15.4.2006 passed by the Learned Labour Court, Ratnagiri dismissing the Petitioner's Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2001, which was confirmed by the Industrial Court by judgment and order dated 18.9.2008 and Revision Application (ULP) of 1999 of 2006 was dismissed. 3. Brief facts are as under: The Respondent is a co-operative bank, constituted under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Petitioner was appointed by the Respondent Bank on 1.1.1982 as a Clerk at Shirgaon Branch from 7.5.1995 to 31.5.1992 and at the relevant time, Shri S.P. Khedekar was the Branch Manager. A chargesheet was issued against the Branch Manager Shri S.P. Khedekar on 18.2.1999 in which it was alleged that he had diverted certain funds of the bank to his own account. An enquiry was held against the Branch Manager and the Petitioner was examined as a witness and the charge against the Branch Manager has been proved and he was dismissed from services. Thereafter, chargesheet was issued against the Petitioner dated 16.12.1999 and it was alleged that the Petitioner had acted in collusion with the Branch Manager. The Enquiry Officer recorded a finding holding the Petitioner guilty of all the allegations levelled against him in the chargesheet. Accordingly services of the Petitioner were terminated by order dated 30.3.2001. The Petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.22 of 2001 before the Labour Court challenging the order of termination. The Labour Court dismissed the Petitioner's complaint by judgment and order dated 15.4.2006. The Petitioner challenged the said order of the Labour Court by filing a Revision Application (ULP) 199 of 2006 before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court also rejected and dismissed the Revision Application. 4. Shri Topkar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has invited my attention to the chargesheet issued against the Petitioner and submitted that only allegation against him was that he had acted in collusion with the Branch Manager. He invited my attention to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and submitted that only allegation which was made, was that the Petitioner had entered the transaction in the books of accounts. It was urged that since the Petitioner was a clerk in the bank, he was duty bound to take entry in the books of accounts. He submitted that the finding of the Enquiry Officer was perverse. He further submitted that the Petitioner was examined as a witness in the enquiry which was held against the Branch Manager. However, after the said enquiry was over, the chargesheet was issued against the present Petitioner. He submitted that therefore, the enquiry was not held in a fair and proper manner and there was violation of principles of natural justice. 5. There is no merit in submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. I have perused the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. Both the Courts below had given cogent reasons for accepting the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The evidence on record normally shows that though it was apparent that the cheque which was issued in the name of the party concerned was altered by the Branch Manager and the figure of Rs.1,95,000/- was changed to Rs. 5,95,000/- and, thereafter, the said money was diverted in the account of the Branch Manager. The Petitioner who was the clerk in the bank had made the necessary entry in the books of accounts and, therefore, collusion between the Branch Manager and the Petitioner herein had been established by the Bank on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on record. Under these circumstances, in my view, no case is made out to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Petitioner is dismissed in lemini. V.M. KANADE J.