1 wp11750.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 11750 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. A.I. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.B. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 43. 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Deshmukh for petitioner and Mr. Salunke for respondent nos.1 to 43. 2. The petitioner-employer is challenging the judgment dated 16.08.2010 delivered by Industrial Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 84/2007. The respondents filed that complaint claiming that discontinuation of additional Index DA from 01.04.1996 to them was in violation of settlement between the parties and hence constituted an unfair labour practice. Industrial Court has accepted that contention and delivered the impugned judgment. 3. Mr. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner states that the complaint filed was time barred as grievance which 2 wp11750.10 arose way back in 1996, was filed in 2007. He further states that the settlement was with the Apex Bank and after bifurcation, the petitioner Bank came in existence. Because of bifurcation, that settlement came to an end. Lastly, he says that at the relevant time, the petitioner Bank was under liquidation and previous sanction under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was not obtained. 4. Advocate Mr. Salunke for respondents supports the impugned judgment. 5. It is apparent that the settlement was/is very much in force even today. Merely because the petitioner Bank is bifurcated, that does not mean the settlement earlier entered into by the Apex Bank, came to an end. The Apex Bank is predecessor of the petitioner-Bank and all settlements with it, are binding on the petitioner. After bifurcation of the Bank, the service conditions applicable to the employees can not be changed unilaterally. 6. Issue of limitation is equally misconceived and as settlement is in force, the cause of action is continuous. The Full Bench of this Court in "Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur through its Divisional Controller, Bhandara V/s Premlal S/o Khatri Gajbhiye" reported in 2003 II CLR 387 has settled this controversy and it is upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court. 3 wp11750.10 7. Requirement of permission under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is also looked into by the Industrial Court and it has found that such permission was not necessary at the stage at which the respondents-employees approached it. 8. I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the findings arrived at by the Industrial Court. The Writ Petition is rejected. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 13.01.2011 gas/wp11750.10