Dismissed

Shri. Mukund Anantrao Pawar v. the Chief Executive Officer, the Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2012LPA/122/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent appeals against an order dismissing Writ Petitions. The High Court held that appellants, despite clerical origins, acted as supervisory Branch Managers with disqualifying duties and pay under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and summarily dismissed the appeals.

What did the court decide?

The appeals were summarily dismissed. Clarified that contentions regarding maintainability were not examined.

Shri. Mukund Anantrao Pawar Vs the Chief… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2012)

gopi

lpa-122 & 123-2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.122 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3133 OF 2012 WITH

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.179 OF 2012

¶9

Shri Mukund Anantrao Pawar. ..Appellant Versus

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer, The Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶11

WITH LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.123 OF 2012 IN

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.3127 OF 2012 WITH

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.180 OF 2012

¶14

Shri Madhukar Bhauarao Hingmire ..Appellant Versus The Chief Executive Officer, The Nasik Merchants Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶15

Mr. M.S. Topkar for the Appellants. Mr. P.M. Palshikar for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶16

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 13 August 2012.

¶17

P.C.

¶18

In these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the appellants, two in number, have challenged the common judgment dated 3 May 2012 of the learned Single Judge dismissing their Writ petitions

1/3

2 lpa-122 & 123-2012

gopi

against the order of the Industrial Court holding that the appellants are not 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, the complaints filed by the appellants against the order transferring them to other places are not maintainable.

¶23

The appellants are the employees of respondent No.1Nashik Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd. The appellants were initially appointed as clerks and later on promoted to the post of Junior Officer. The appellants are given postings as Branch Managers and are also being paid separate allowances as Branch Managers. The Industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have given a concurrent finding of fact that as per their own admission the appellants are writing the confidential reports of the other employees in their branch and are also empowered to sanction loan to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appellants also recommended leave applications in respect of the employees working under them. The appellants also admitted that they have signed other documents as Branch Managers.

¶24

In view of the above admissions of the appellants, the Industrial Court as well as the learned Single Judge have held that the appellants are discharging the duties of supervisory nature and are drawing approximately Rs.18,000/- per month. Therefore, they cannot be considered as 'workmen' within the mean of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

¶25

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The appeals are accordingly summarily dismissed.

2/3

3 lpa-122 & 123-2012

gopi

It is clarified that since we do not find any substance in the the contentions raised by the appellants, we may not be deemed to have examined the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeals are not maintainable.

¶30

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶32

3/3

Shri. Mukund Anantrao Pawar v. the Chief Executive Officer, the Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mukund Anantrao Pawar v. the Chief Executive Officer, the Nashik Merchants Co-Op. Bank Ltd, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra K. Ghelani and 2 Ors. Vs Kalpana Anantrai Kakkad and 4 Ors.

Misbah Mehmood Khan Vs the Government of India and Ors.

Lillian Pais and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Raghu B.Pujari Vs Jamuna Ramlal Yadav and Anr.

M/S. Videocon Industries Limited, Vs M/S. Whirlpool of India Limited

Afak Anwar Mandaviya. Vs Dean of Sion Hospital Ms. Sandya Kamat and 5 Ors.