NARESH RANE Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). PETITIONERS are permanent employees of respondent No. 2. They seek a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1, liquidator of respondent No. 2 to make payments in accordance with statement (Exhibit "c") being their dues during the course of their employment. They seek restraint order against these respondents restraining them from alienating, selling, disposing of any assets of respondent No. 2 bank. It is the case of petitioners that respondent No. 2 bank was promoted by women. It was established in 1972. It is a bank controlled by Smt. Shalinitai Patil. She and her daughter were exclusively looking after its affairs. Head office of the bank is at Dadar and it has branches at Dadar, Mahim, Borivli, chembur and Dharavi. This bank has assets and properties. However, on account of financial irregularities and mismanagement, reserve Bank of India took the bank under rehabilitation scheme and issued several orders and directives from time to time. It is contended that immediately after these, entire Board of the bank resigned on December 30, 1998. The dist. Deputy Registrar appointed an administrator and he took charge on January 1, 1999. The Board of Administrators came to be appointed on January 7, 1999 and it functioned till June 30, 1999. During the tenure of Board of Administrators, Reserve Bank of india suggested to the State Rehabilitation review Committee that the affairs of this bank be enquired under Section 83 of the maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short MCS Act ). In pursuance of this directive, vide an order dated March 17, 1999 district Deputy Registrar initiated enquiry. Against these directives of Dist. Dy. Registrar to initiate enquiry, four directors of the erstwhile Board filed an appeal under Section 154 of MCS Act and the Minister of State for co-operation by his order dated May 4, 1999 stayed the enquiry on some items. On the items on which inquiry was not stayed, Dist. Dy. Registrar directed initiation of proceedings under Section 83 of MCS Act by his order dated january 18, 2000. Enquiry officer was appointed and his report was submitted to the authorities. Thereafter, another order dated august 11, 2000 was passed under Section 88 of MCS Act and an enquiry officer came to be appointed. Even this enquiry is completed. It appears that the authorised officer had already passed order under Section 88 of the MCS Act fixing assessing the damages/losses and the liabilities on almost all the directors of the bank. The total liability fixed was Rs. 29. 26 crores. The delinquent directors had filed appeal under Section 152 of the MCS Act before the Divisional Joint Registrar, co-operative Societies, Mumbai. The liquidators had filed written reply and written submissions in support of the order of the authorised officer and strongly opposed the said appeal. However, the said order under Section 88 of the MCS Act has been set aside and quashed by the Divisional Joint Registrar by his order dated December 26, 2003.

(2.) ). Complaint of petitioners is that enquiry has been stayed in so far as four vital items are concerned and therefore a proper enquiry be held on all items. It is contended that prior to december 31, 1998, there were totally 92 employees out of which 45 opted for voluntary retirement and two resigned during liquidation proceedings. As on December 28, 1999, there were totally 43 employees and their dues are not properly computed by liquidator. It is their contention that dues have to be computed on the basis of Section 25-F of the Industrial disputes Act and such calculations are furnished by them at Exhibit C.

(3.) ). It is their complaint that liquidator, without completing the proceedings has issued termination letters on November 29, 2001. Their services are sought to be terminated under Section 25-FF of the I. D. Act. Employees sought clarification and issued a legal notice complaining about termination orders. They sought his permission under section 107 of MCS Act to file appeals against proposed termination.