Remanded

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Now Known as Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ) v. Mr. Prakash Appaso Parmaj

Bombay HC20 Oct 2021WP/6953/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Industrial Court's decision to reject a prayer for framing preliminary issues on maintainability. The Court directed the Industrial Court to frame specific issues regarding employer-employee relationship, res judicata, and limitation, and ordered disposal of complaints within one year.

What did the court decide?

Directions to delete issue no.1 (maintainability) on the complaint and substitute it with specific issues on relationship, res judicata, limitation, and locus standi; order disposal within one year.

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶2

Prajakta Vartak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6409 OF 2021

¶5

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.

¶6

Mr. Ashok Nanoba Kapase

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6943 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Hemantkumar Vyankappa Wadd...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6953 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Prakash Appaso Parmaj...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6941 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Nemgonda Rama Chougule...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6932 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Dhanyakumar Chandrakant Nille...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6946 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Sunil Purandar Adake...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6937 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Vasant Bapu Magdum...Respondent

¶9

1 / 13

¶10

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶11

AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2010 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Mahadev Appaso Bulle...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6948 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Akaram Balu Pujari...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6929 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Sukumar Shamrao Tamgave...Respondent
6AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6954 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Nemgonda Anna Patil...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6949 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mahavir Rama Gomar...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6955 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Prakash Dhanpal Gunde through LHR
Smt. Akkatai Prakash Gunde & Ors....Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2240 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Subhash Shivgonda Patil...Respondent

¶12

2 / 13

¶13

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶14

`AND` `WRIT PETITION NO.6945 OF 2021`
`The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd.` `...Petitioner` `V/s.` `Ravindra Bapusaheb Patil` `...Respondent` `AND` `WRIT PETITION NO.6947 OF 2021`
`The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd.` `...Petitioner` `V/s.` `Ms. Shakuntala Arun Patil` `...Respondent`
`AND` `WRIT PETITION NO.6959 OF 2021`
`The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd.` `...Petitioner` `V/s.` `Arvind Appaso Patil` `...Respondent` `AND` `WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2262 OF 2020`
`The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd.` `...Petitioner` `V/s.`
`Dhanyakumar Adinath Jain` `...Respondent` `AND` `WRIT PETITION NO.6951 OF 2021`
`The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd.` `...Petitioner` `V/s.`
`Smt. Mangala Mohan Limbekar` `...Respondent` `AND` `WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2294 OF 2020`
`The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd.` `...Petitioner` `V/s.` `Miss. Kalpana Sanjay Patil` `...Respondent` `AND`

¶15

3 / 13

¶16

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.6944 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Neminath Bhupal Mandape...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6952 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Bandu Devappa Adake...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6939 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Mahavir Annaso Melvanki...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2330 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Mahavir Bharma Aadanna...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2334 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Dada Kalgaonda Patil...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6935 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Jinpal Bandu Suryawanshi...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1702 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Shashikant Dattatraya Gokave...Respondent

¶18

4 / 13

¶19

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶20

AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2339 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Ajit Vasantrao Limbekar...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6958 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Prabhakar Baburao Kapase...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6942 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Mahavir Neminath Narade...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6956 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Pramod Sahadev Parab...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6940 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Kumar Shamu Kumbhoje...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.1703 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Milind Ganesh Kulkarni...Respondent
AND

¶21

5 / 13

¶22

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶23

WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2350 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Prakash Chandrakant Altekar...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Sunanda Subhash Daragshetti...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2352 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Urjit Nilkantharao Japtanmulukha...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6957 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Dhanpal Shivappa Athane...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6936 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Miss. Kanchan Jaykumar Shendage...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6931 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Uday Sakharam Kulkarni...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6938 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Mahavir Kallappa Chougule...Respondent

¶24

6 / 13

¶25

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶26

AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2386 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Rajgonda Adgaonda Patil...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6960 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Laxman Dattatraya Shelke...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2515 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Prakash Tatoba Kagwade...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION (St.) NO.2519 OF 2020
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Prabhakar Vasudev Karade...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6930 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Balgonda Bapu Patil...Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.6928 OF 2021
The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Jinpal Raghoba Terdale...Respondent
AND

¶27

7 / 13

¶28

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.6934 OF 2021

¶30

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.

¶31

Mr. Suryakant Dhondiram Bindage...Respondent

¶32

AND

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.6926 OF 2021

¶34

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.

¶35

Mr. Vasant Tatoba Bhokare...Respondent

¶36

AND WRIT PETITION NO.6927 OF 2021

¶37

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-op. Bank Ltd....Petitioner
V/s.
Ms. Rohini Bapusaheb Patil...Respondent

¶38

Mr. Dhananjay Bhanage with Mr. Mayur Dilip Joglekar for Petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Patil with Ms. Neha Patil i/b. Akshay Vijay Kamble for
Respondent.

¶39

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : OCTOBER 20, 2021

¶40

PC :

¶41

1.This is a batch of writ petitions in which similar orders although
passed on different dates by the learned Member, Industrial Court No.1,
Kolhapur are challenged. These petitions hence are being disposed of by
this common order. For convenience, the facts in the lead petition are being
referred.

¶42

2.The impugned orders dated 2 December, 2019 are passed on
applications as filed by the petitioner praying that a preliminary issue be
framed inter-alia as to whether there is an employee-employer relationship
between the petitioner-bank and the respondents-complainants. The

¶43

8 / 13

¶44

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶45

contention of the petitioner before the Industrial Court was to the effect
that issues on principles of res-judicata/principle analogous to res-judicata
and locus-standi of the complainant as raised by the petitioner be framed as
preliminary issues. In the impugned order, the Industrial Court observed
that earlier the Court had framed the following issues:-

¶46

“1) Whether the Complainant is maintainable?

¶47

2) Whether the Complainant proves that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labour practices under items-5, 9 and 10 of Sch.IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971?

¶48

3) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?

¶49

4) What order?”

¶50

In view of the above issues being framed, it was observed by the Industrial
Court that first issue as framed on maintainability of the complaint would
cover all the issues which were raised by the petitioner to be framed as
preliminary issues and hence it was not necessary to frame a separate issue
on maintainability of the complaints as contended by the petitioner. It was
observed by the Industrial Court that it would be proper and desirable if all
the objections raised by the petitioner (respondents therein) in respect of
maintainability of the complaints are dealt in the first issue as framed. The
Industrial Court referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in D.P.
Maheshwari v/s. Delhi Admn. And others reported in 1983 LIC Page
No.1629, rejected the petitioner’s application against which the present
petitions have been filed.

¶51

3.Mr. Bhanage, learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the
impugned orders passed by the Industrial Tribunal, has drawn the Court’s
attention to the decision which was rendered by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the previous round i.e. in Dhanpal Parisa Khot vs. Shamrao
Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. reported in 2012 III CLR 163 which was on a

¶52

9 / 13

¶53

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶54

writ petition filed by one of the employees challenging the orders passed by
the Industrial Court on an application filed under Section 33(C)(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which was rejected by the Industrial Court. A
learned Single Judge of this Court in rejecting the said writ petition in
paragraphs 24 and 25 had observed as under:-

¶55

“24.Therefore, when there are serious doubts and disputes
raised with regard to the liabilities and so called obligations of the
earlier Bank i.e. Mahavir Bank, there is no question of considering
the same under Section 33(C)(2) of the I.D. Act. Therefore, the
rejection of such applications need no interfere. All the Petitions
are accordingly dismissed.

¶56

25.This in no way, be treated as denial of the Petitioner’s right
to take out appropriate steps in accordance with law to claim and
get their dues settled, if available.”

¶57

4.The decision of the learned Single Judge was confirmed by the
Division Bench of this Court in a Letters Patent Appeal being a decision in
Shrikant Bhujaballi Bahirshet Kasargalli, Kolhapur Vs. Shamrao Vithal Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai reported in 2018 II CLR 111 case. The
Division Bench while confirming the above observations of the learned
Single Judge in paragraph 27 observed thus:-

¶58

“27.For the reasons recorded in the above lead matter, all the
above Letters Patent Appeals being Nos.250 of 2013, 253 of 2013
to 284 of 2013, 286 of 2013 to 297 of 2013, 300 of 2013 to 309
of 2013 would have to be dismissed and are accordingly
dismissed. However, it is clarified that all the Appellants would be
entitled to follow the course of action which is proposed by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment and Order of
filing appropriate proceedings. If any such proceedings are filed,
needless to state that the same would be tried on their own merits
and in accordance with law.”

¶59

5.The respondents/employees espousing the liberty granted to them
under the above orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
have filed complaints in questions under the provisions of Section 28(i) of

¶60

10 / 13

¶61

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶62

MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. It is an admitted position that the complaint
has proceeded to a stage where affidavits of evidence have been filed on
behalf of the parties. At such stage, the application(s) in question came to
be moved on behalf of the petitioner praying for framing of preliminary
issues as noted above. The specific contention of the petitioner was that
there was no employer-employee relationship between the petitioner and
the respondents, however in raising such contention in the written
statement, the following averments were made by the petitioner:-

¶63

“…… The Scheme of amalgamation (21/07/2006) had provided
that the employees of the Transferor Bank would continue in the
service of the Transferee Bank (Shamrao Vithal Cooperative
Bank) unless the employee concerned intimated his intention to
the Transferor Bank or to the Transferee Bank of not becoming
the employee of the Transferee Bank. The services of the
Complainant were thus technically continued under the Scheme
by Shamrao Vithal Cooperative Bank on and after 04/09/2006
i.e. the date of transfer. The Complainant, however, expressed
his desire not to be the employee of the Transferee Bank. He
was, therefore, paid specified amounts on the date of his
separation and the Complainant executed an undertaking that he
had received the specified separation amount and that he would
not raise any dispute for any further amounts including for the
amounts now claimed by him in the present complaint in
violation of his undertaking.”

¶64

 (emphasis supplied)

¶65

6.On such basis, in the application praying for framing of preliminary
issues, the petitioner has taken a position that there is no employer-
employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents-
complainants. By the impugned order, the Industrial Tribunal has rejected
the application as filed by the petitioner.

¶66

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
also having noted decisions (supra) as referred on behalf of
the petitioner, in my opinion, considering the facts of the

¶67

11 / 13

¶68

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶69

case and the specific observations which are made by the learned Single
Judge in Dhanpal Parisa Khot (supra) and by the Division Bench in Shrikant
Bhujaballi Bahirshet Kasargalli, Kolhapur (supra), I am of the opinion that
the interest of justice would be served if the Industrial Court is directed to
delete the issue no.1 namely “Whether the complaint is maintainable?” and
to substitute the same by the following specific issues:-

¶70

“(a) Whether in view of the denial of employer-employee relationship by the Respondent Bank with the Complainant, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Complaint? (b) Whether the Complaint is barred by the principle of resjudicata or principle analogous to res-judicata?

¶71

(c) Whether this Complaint is filed within limitation? (d) Whether the Complainant proves that he has the locus standi and a cause of action to file the present Complaint?”

¶72

8.Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents/employees, on
instructions, is agreeable for such course of action. Let all issues be
adjudicated at the final disposal of the respective complaints. Ordered
accordingly.

¶73

9.Considering that the parties are before the Court in different
proceedings for quite sometime as also that the parties have assured that
they would co-operate in early disposal of the proceedings, the learned
Member of the Industrial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of such
complaints as expeditiously as possible and within a period of one year from
today.

¶74

10.At the first instance, let the parties appear before the Industrial Court
on a convenient date which may be fixed by the Industrial Court within a
period of two weeks from today.

¶75

12 / 13

¶76

18-wp 6409-21 grp.doc

¶77

11. All contentions on merits of the pending complaints are expressly kept open.

¶78

12 All petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.

¶79

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶80

Digitally signed by PRAJAKTA PRAJAKTA SAGAR SAGAR VARTAK VARTAK Date: 2021.10.26 18:27:46 +0530

¶81

13 / 13

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Now Known as Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ) v. Mr. Prakash Appaso Parmaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Now Known as Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ) v. Mr. Prakash Appaso Parmaj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Nagar Achanak Nagar Chsl Vs Asst. Registrar Co-Operative Societies Mumbai Sra and Ors.

Shefali Sanjiv Patel and Anr. Vs Mrs. Jyoti Manubhai Patel and Anr.

Ramji Meghji Patel Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Now Known as Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ) Vs Mr. Ashok Nanoba Kapase

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Now Known as Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ) Vs Mr. Hemantkumar Vyankappa Wadd

The Shamrao Vitthal Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Now Known as Svc Co-Operative Bank Ltd. ) Vs Mr. Nemgonda Rama Chougule