IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3438 OF 2009 Trambak Gaikwad ...Petitioner Vs. Nashik Road Deolali Road Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd. .. Respondent --- Shri A.S. Desai for Petitioner Shri M.S. Topkar for Respondent No.3. Shri N.V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 ---- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED 16TH APRIL, 2009 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is a Director of the Nashik Road Deolali Road Vyapari Sahakari Bank Ltd. The Director had appointed Respondent Nos.3 to 29 on temporary basis. The appointment of these Respondents were challenged. A complaint to that effect was made by the Petitioner herein. Pursuant to the said complaint, an order was passed by the Commissioner for Cooperation and a direction was issued under section 79 to Respondent Bank to terminate their services. Accordingly, their services were terminated. In the meantime, the bank challenged the order of Commissioner before the State Government by filing a Revision. However, the government has dismissed the Revision. The Respondent Bank, thereafter, again, challenged the order passed by the State Government in a Revision as well as the order passed by the Commissioner for Cooperation under section 79 by filing a writ petition. However, the said writ petition was also dismissed. 3. In view of the order passed by confirming the orders passed by the Lower Authorities, the Respondent Bank thereafter terminated the services of the said employees by giving one month's notice. A complaint was filed by these Respondents before the Industrial Court. In the said complaint, an application was filed by the present Petitioner for intervening in the said complaint. The said application was rejected by the Labour Court. Thereafter, the Labour Court decided the said complaint and partly allowed the said complaint. 4. Being aggrieved by the said order, a revision was filed by the employee before the Industrial Court. In this Revision Application also, the present Petitioner filed an application for intervention. His application for intervention was rejected. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Industrial Court allowing the revision application and being aggrieved by the order passed by the said Court rejecting the application of the Petitioner for intervention, the present Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Shri Desai, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner had initially filed the complaint and on the basis of the said complaint, the services of the employees were finally terminated, pursuant to the orders which were passed by the Commissioner for Cooperation which were confirmed by this Court. He submitted that , therefore, the Petitioner who was the Director of the bank, was a proper and necessary party and the application for intervention ought to have been allowed by the Industrial Court. He invited my attention to the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition, which was filed by the bank, challenging the order of the Commissioner for Cooperation and the State Government. He also invited my attention to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2311 of 2007. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the order passed by the Industrial Court was patently illegal and could not have been passed in view of the earlier order passed by this Court. 6. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. The Petitioner is one of the Directors of the Respondent Bank and, as such, he does not have necessary locus to intervene in the dispute, which is pending between the bank and the employees. The bank has been represented by its Board of Directors and, as such, is a proper and necessary party which is looking after the interest of the bank. The order which is passed by the High Court is in respect of the proceedings which have been initiated under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, which has attained finality. After the services of the employees were terminated by the Bank, these employees have challenged their termination by initiating proceedings before the appropriate forum. The Industrial Court has given cogent reason while rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner for intervention. The Industrial Court has also observed that the Petitioner, apart from being a Director of the bank, was also a signatory to the resolution which was passed by the Bank issuing the appointment in favour of the Respondents. All the contentions raised by the Petitioner herein have been recorded and have been considered by the Industrial Court by giving cogent reason. 7. In my view, no case is made out by the Petitioner to interfere with the order passed by the Industrial Court in rejecting the application for intervention while exercising the writ, jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. V.M. KANADE J.