-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4270 OF 2007 The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapari Sahakari Bank Limited : Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, Pune & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Kishore Patil i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi for the petitioner. Ms V.S.Mhaispurkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1, 2 & 4. .... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.892 OF 2008 In WRIT PETITION NO.4270 OF 2007 Trambak Gabaji Gaikwad & Anr. : Applicant V/s. The Nashik Road Deolali Vyapri Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.P.L.Bhujbal for the applicants. Mr.Kishore Patil i/b. Mr.P.N.Joshi for resp. no.1. Ms V.S.Mhaispurkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent -: 2 :- nos.2, 3 & 5. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank. 2. The Bank is aggrieved by the order dated 2.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, State of Maharashtra, and duly confirmed by the lower appellate authority by dismissing Appeal No.26/2006. 3. It appears that an inquiry was directed to be conducted by Mr.A.M.More, Special Auditor, Co-operative Societies, Class-I, appointed as an Inquiry Officer in regard to the appointments made by the Bank and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 7.10.2005. It was revealed from the said report that the Bank was called upon to fill up the backlog of 17 posts from the reserved category and instead, the Bank appointed 33 employees. It was further noticed that out of the said 33 appointees, only four were found to be eligible and the remaining 29 appointments were illegal. It was also noticed that the daughter of Mr.Ramdas Sadafule, one of the Directors of the Bank, was one such appointee from amongst 29 illegally appointed. The Commissioner for Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies, therefore, directed -: 3 :- to issue termination orders to all the new appointees and to relieve them from the service of the Bank within one month. The salary paid to these appointees has been directed to be the responsibility of the Bank. This order was challenged by filing Appeal No.26/2006 before the State Government and the Minister of State for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile was pleased to dismiss the said appeal. 4. Even in this Petition, no material has been placed on record to dispel the finding that the 29 appointees were illegally appointed. The audit report further states that the employees who were removed from service on account of unsatisfactory performance were also amongst these 29 employees. When the Bank was called upon to fill in 17 posts, it proceeded to appoint 33 persons i.e. almost the double. Having regard to the financial condition of the Bank, the respondent no.1 was of the considered view that it would not be able to bear the additional financial burden. For these reasons, appointments were found to be illegal by both the authorities below. 5. Mr.Patil pointed out that in obedience of the order passed by the respondent no.1, all the appointees were removed from service and they approached the Industrial Court at Nasik by filing Complaint (ULP) No.20 to 46 of 2006. The said complaints were allowed on 4.1.2007. The -: 4 :- said order passed by the Industrial Court came to be challenged in Writ Petition No.2311 of 2007 which was dismissed on 29.6.2007. The Industrial Court noted that the Bank did not adduce any evidence and the complaints remained uncontested. Thus, on one hand, the Bank has to implement the order passed by the Industrial Court and, on the other hand, the appointments were held to be illegal by the State Government. The Bank should have taken adequate steps before the Industrial Court to bring on record the order passed by the respondent no.1 and adduce evidence to oppose the complaints filed under Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971. Before the State Government, the Bank went on justifying the appointments and before the Industrial Court, it decided not to contest the complaints and this unparallel situation was invited by the Bank. The order passed by the respondent no.1 and confirmed by the State Government does not call for any interference. 6. Hence, the Petition is rejected summarily. 7. Civil Application No.892 of 2008 is allowed. B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.