OSMANABAD DISTRICT CENTRAL COOPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. VYANKATESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The letters patent appeal is filed to challenge the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court given in Writ Petition No.1972/2009. The writ petition was filed to challenge the judgment and award dated 19-9- 2008 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court Latur in Complaint ULP No.388/2004. The said complaint was filed by the present respondent under provisions of Sec. 28 read with Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. Relief was claimed to direct the respondent-District Central Cooperative Bank Osmanabad to return the amount of Rs.1.6 lakh deposited by the complainant, present respondent along with interest. The complaint was also filed for direction to the bank to pay terminal benefits like provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment amount etc. Both the sides are heard.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent that he had joined the appellant-bank in the year 1965 and he retired on superannuation on 7-1-2003. It is contended that at the time of retirement he was working on the post of Deputy Chief Officer. It is contended that without holding proper enquiry he was held guilty of misconduct and he was made to deposit amount of Rs.1.6 lakh with the bank. It is contended that no proper enquiry was conducted against him. First he was suspended and then he was directed to pay the aforesaid amount. The learned Member of the Industrial Court allowed the complaint and gave direction to return the aforesaid amount with simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum. This order was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition by the bank before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has maintained the order of the Industrial Court of directing to return the amount but the interest is reduced to make it 10% per annum.

(3.) The submissions made show that during the service period no enquiry was conducted against the respondent and only due to audit objection a direction was given to him to return the amount. No separate enquiry was held to fix the responsibility on him in respect of the aforesaid amount. Though during service he was placed under suspension due to audit report, it was necessary for the employer to start and conduct enquiry for fixing the responsibility but that was not done. The Industrial Court has set aside the order only for the reason that no enquiry was held and no opportunity was given to the complainant to put forth his case. For the same reason, the learned Single Judge has confirmed the order.