Partly allowed

Tanaji Vyankatrao Hingole and Others v. the Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Nanded through Its Manging Director

Bombay HC11 Jul 2023WP/1892/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging 2005 Orders dismissing permanancy complaints were dismissed due to inordinate delay of over 16 years. However, the Court granted limited directions for future recruitment preferences under Section 25(H) of the ID Act, excluding specific petitioners involved in pending earlier litigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed due to delay; relief granted that petitioners (excluding specific names) may be given preference in future recruitment under Section 25(H) of ID Act if eligible.

Tanaji Vyankatrao Hingole and Others Vs the… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2023)

{1}

wp1748-21.doc

drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 2021

¶6

Yadav Yogaji Ingle PETITIONER Age – 44 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kasrali, Post – Kasrali, Taluka – Biloli, District - Nanded

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The	Nanded District Central Co-operative
Bank Stati Talu Thro	Ltd., Nanded RESPONDENT on Road, Nanded ka and District – Nanded ugh its Managing Director WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1890 OF 2021
1.	Rajeshwar Madhavrao Hingole PETITIONERS Age – 38 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kutubshahapurwadi, Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
2.	Balaji Sheshrao Khanapure Age – 39 years, Occ – Labour R/o Gawadgaon, Post – Ballur Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
3.	Shridhar Lahurao Biradar Age – 37 years, Occ -Labour R/o Khutmapur, Post – Hanegaon, Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
4.	Gorakshanath Raghunath Deshmukh Age – 38 years, Occ – Labour R/o Dhosani, Post – Kawalgaon Taluka – Degloor, District - Nanded
5.	Bhagwan Gangadhar Jalne Age – 44 years,Occ – Labour R/o Wazarga, Post – Vannali

¶9

{2} wp1748-21.doc

¶10

	Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
6.	Rupesh Ranjeetrao Desai Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Degaon (B) Post – Degaon Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
7.	Sanjay Digambarrao Ingle Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Bhaktapur, Post – Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
8.	Shaikh Mainoddin Shaikh Jalalsab Age – 42 years, Occ – Labour R/o Devapur, Post – Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
9.	Anil Hulreddy Ardhe Age – 41 years Occ -Labour R/o Morkhel, Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
10.	Hanmant Baburao Birajdar Age – 39 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kathewadi,Post – Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
11.	Sanjay Laxmanrao Patil Age – 45 years, Occ – Labour R/o Shivbanagar, Degloor Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
12.	Mohammad Ahmadmiya Age – 43 years, Occ – Labour R/o Azad Colony, Degloor Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded VERSUS
The Bank Stati Taluk	Nanded District Central Co-operative Ltd., Nanded on Road, Nanded a and District – Nanded	RESPONDENT
Thro	ugh its Managing Director

¶11

{3}

¶12

wp1748-21.doc

¶13

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1891 OF 2021

¶14

Babu Kondiba Waghmare PETITIONER
Age – 44 years, Occ – Labour R/o At Post Khatgaon, Taluka – Biloli, District - Nanded
VERSUS
The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded RESPONDENT Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded Through its Managing Director WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1892 OF 2021
1. Tanaji Vyankatrao Hingole PETITIONERS Age – 44 years, Occ – Labour R/o Kutubshahapurwadi, Post Hottal Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
2. Manohar Manikrao Ingole Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Tupdal, Taluka – Mukhed, District – Nanded
3. Shivaji Hanmantrao Wadekar (Patil) Age – 43 years, Occ -Labour R/o Bhokaskheda, Post – Kawalgaon Taluka – Degloor, District – Nanded
4. Bhagwat Venkatrao Aglawe Age – 38 years, Occ – Labour R/o Sangvi Bhadev, Post- Ambulga (BK) Taluka – Mukhed, District - Nanded
VERSUS
The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded RESPONDENT
Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded

¶15

wp1748-21.doc

¶16

{4}

¶17

Through its Managing Director

¶18

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1893 OF 2021

¶19

Ramchandra Gangaram Male Age – 40 years, Occ – Labour R/o Shahapur, Taluka – Degloor District - Nanded

¶20

PETITIONER

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

The Nanded District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nanded Station Road, Nanded Taluka and District – Nanded Through its Managing Director

¶23

RESPONDENT

¶24

Mr. Vivek J. Dhage, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Kamlakar J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for the respondent

¶25

[CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶26

DATE : 11th JULY, 2023

¶27

JUDGMENT :

¶28

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

¶29

the consent of the learned advocates for the parties.

¶30

Since all these petitions raise similar question of law and

¶31

fact, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶32

These petitions, filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the judgments and orders passed

¶33

{5} wp1748-21.doc

¶34

by Industrial Court, Jalna dated 1^st April, 2005, thereby dismissing the complaints claiming permanancy, filed by the petitioners.

¶35

Since, there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petitions, learned advocate for the petitioners restricts his prayer to the extent of seeking directions to the respondent – Bank, in terms of section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He submits that since the petitioners are retrenched and there is inordinate delay in filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners restrict their prayer to the extent of seeking direction to the respondent – Bank that in case the Bank proposes to recruit any person in future, then the petitioners may be given an opportunity to compete and they may be given preference over other persons.

¶36

By filing reply, the respondent – Bank has opposed the petitions on the ground of delay and laches and also on merits. It is contended that some of the petitioners have already approached this Court, challenging the same judgment and order, by filing writ petition No. 4436 of 2005, which is filed on behalf of 250 workmen / erstwhile employees of the Bank. A specific averment is made in the affidavit in reply that petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11 in writ petition No.1890 of 2021, sole

¶37

{6} wp1748-21.doc

¶38

petitioner in writ petition No.1891 of 2021, petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 in writ petition No. 1892 of 2021 and the sole petitioner in writ petition No. 1893 of 2021 are the petitioners in writ petition No. 4436 of 2005. It is further averred that the said petition is still pending in this Court.

¶39

Learned advocate for the respondent – Bank submits that there is inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court. The complaint (ULP) was filed in the year 2001 and was dismissed in the year 2005 and the present petitions are filed in the year 2021. He further submits that the petitioners were working as daily wagers and hence, they cannot claim equitable relief, by relying on section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

¶40

Inordinate delay in filing present petitions is writ large on the face of record. The complaints seeking permanancy were filed by the petitioners in the year 2001 and those were dismissed in the year 2005. Present petitions are filed in the year 2021 challenging the order passed in the year 2005. It is also clear from the record that there is absolutely no explanation given by the petitioners for approaching this Court with inordinate delay. It also appears from the record that at the time of retrenchment, the petitioners were working as daily wagers.

¶41

{7}

¶42

wp1748-21.doc

¶43

It is evident from the record that delay of more than 16 years in filing these petitions is not explained by the petitioners. The only explanation given by them that since the petitioners are poor, they could not approach this Court at earlier point of time, is unacceptable and cannot be said to be sufficient for entertaining these petitions, which are filed after more than 16 years. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

¶44

If the respondent Bank proposes to fill in any post, it may consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of section 25 (H) of the Industrial Disputes Act, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible and qualified.

¶45

It is made clear that the above directions shall not operate in favour of petitioner Nos. 1, 5, 10 and 11 in writ petition No.1890 of 2021, sole petitioner in writ petition No.1891 of 2021, petitioner Nos.1, 3 and 4 in writ petition No. 1892 of 2021 and the sole petitioner in writ petition No. 1893 of 2021, who are petitioners in writ petition No. 4436 of 2005.

¶46

drp/wp1748-21.doc

¶47

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE

Tanaji Vyankatrao Hingole and Others v. the Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Nanded through Its Manging Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanaji Vyankatrao Hingole and Others v. the Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Nanded through Its Manging Director

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

Hastimal Shejmal Jain Thr Lrs Pruthviraj and Ors. Vs Laxman Savlu Joshi Thr Lrs Geetabai and Ors.

Bhagwan Manikrao Khandare and Others Vs Banshidhar Bhagwanrao Khandare

Dhulappa Nahlappa Ghodake Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector and Others

The Deputy General Manager through Its Regional Officer and Others Vs Ashok Wamanrao Ughade

M/S Sanjay v Deshmukh Partnership Firm through Its Managing Partner Sanjay Vithalrao Deshmukh Vs the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. through Its Managing Director and Another

Rajeshwar Madhavrao Hingole and Others Vs the Nanded District Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Nanded through Its Manging Director