Disposed

New India Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2013WP/430/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court clarified that while the petitioner had lost the opportunity to contest an amendment granted to an impleaded union, strikng it out would not serve justice. The petitioner is permitted to object to the amendment's propriety in an additional written statement, leaving the Industrial Court to decide merits independently.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to raise objections to the amendment's propriety in an additional written statement without influencing the Industrial Court's merit-based decision.

New India Co-Op Bank Ltd. Vs Maharashtra… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

WP430-13

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 430 OF 2013

¶6

New India Co-op. Bank Limited .. Petitioner Vs Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.R.S.Pai a/w Mr.Shridhar Poojari a/w Ms Saroj Jadhav i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for petitioner. Mr.Mahesh Shukla, for respondent No.1. Mr.A.S.Peerzada, for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Monday 4 March 2013

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

By this petition the petitioner management seeks to challenge the order passed by the Industrial Court dated 28 February 2012 below Exhibit UA-3, C-17 and U-17.

¶11

A complaint ULP No.417 of 2009 was filed by the respondent No.1 Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena on behalf of 13 workmen employed as peons in the petitioner Bank. The prayer in the complaint is for a declaration that the petitioners have engaged in to unfair labour practices by keeping the said 13 workmen temporary for a long period of time and the said workmen need to be made permanent.

¶12

On 21 January 2013, an application was filed by respondent No.2 Co-operative Bank’s Employees’ Union stating that these 13 workmen have now become members of the respondent No.2 Union and respondent No.2 Union be directed to be impleaded as party complainant

¶13

¶14

WP430-13

¶15

and the respondent no.1's Union be replaced by respondent No.2 Union. It appears that on 17 February 2013, the services of the said 13 workmen were terminated. Thereafter on 11 February 2013 the respondent No.2 Union sought to withdraw the complaint. In this background the application filed by the respondent No.2 was heard by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the complaint by respondent No.1 was only for the cause of workmen and since the said workmen had now become members of the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 cannot prosecute the complaint on their behalf as it was admitted position that the complainants have resigned from membership of respondent No.2 Union. Accordingly, the Industrial court permitted the respondent No.2 Union to join itself as complainant. There is no perversity in this approach. In fact, no other course of action was permissible, therefore the impugned order on that count cannot be interfered.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that the application filed by the respondent No.2 which has been allowed is only for impleadment as a party complainant. However, the Industrial court in the impugned order has gone beyond what is prayed by respondent No.2 Union and had also permitted respondent No.2 to carry out certain amendments and the respondent No.2 has carried out exhaustive amendments to the complaint. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was not aware as to what were the amendments that the respondent No.2 wanted to bring on record and has lost an opportunity to contest the amendment applications. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner has terminated the services of workmen and they are merely prolonging the matter by raising technical objections. He submits that in any case, the petitioner is permitted to file their consequential

WP430-13

written statement.

The perusal of the amendment application filed by respondent No.2 shows that there is no indication as to apart from impleadment what other amendment respondent No.2 wished to carry out. Not even a gist of such amendment, nor oral prayer for amendment stated to have been made, is reflected in the impugned order. It appears that the Tribunal has granted amendment without even perusal of the proposed amendment. Impleadment as a party and amendment to pleadings are two different amendments. Once a party is allowed to be impleaded as a complainant, it does not mean that it can carry out whatever amendments it desires without the leave of the Court. The petitioner ought to have been given opportunity to resist the application made for amendment.

¶21

However, now since the amendments have been actually carried out it will no be in the interest of justice to strike out the amendments and direct respondent No.2 to make a fresh application. Instead of so directing it is clarified that the petitioner in their additional written statement will be entitled to raise an objection, apart from the merits of the amended portion, that the amendment itself should not have been allowed. It is obvious that the said issue will be considered by the Industrial Court on its own merits and without being influenced by what is stated in the order. It is clarified that what is observed above is not reflection of the merits of the case of the rival parties, but only regarding the correctness of the procedure adopted.

¶22

The petition is disposed of in terms of the above.

¶23

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

New India Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

New India Co-Op Bank Ltd. v. Maharashtra Navnirman Kamgar Sena and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digital Securities Privat Limited Vs

M/S. Tech-Flow Engineers India Private Limited Vs -

Techflow Structures Private Limited Vs

Prakash v. Patkar Vs the Chairman

Bharat Shetty Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Skr Bpo Services Private Limited Vs