THE BOMBAY MUNICIPAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED Vs. COOPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred by the Bombay Municipal Education Department Co -operative Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant Bank) against the Orders dated 7th April 1984 and dated 26th April 1984 passed by the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (LCB) No. 299 of 1982. Therefore, these two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. In Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1984, it is submitted by the Appellant Bank that the Co -operative Bank Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent Union) is a representative and Approved Union in respect of the employees working in the Co -operative Bank Industry in Greater Mumbai, under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The Appellant Bank and the Respondent Union are parties to the settlement dated 29th June 1982. The Respondent Union took a stand that the promotion policy of Government was applicable only in respect of the posts to be filled in by recruitment and not for the promotional posts, and that the Respondent union demanded that the vacancy of the Sectional Head in Urdu unit should be filled in by promoting Shri G.G. Vichare, who is the senior most employee in the services of the Appellant Bank. The Respondent union moved an application being Application (LCB) No. 299 of 1982 before the Labour Court, Mumbai. Simultaneously, the Respondent union moved an application for interim reliefs and it obtained ad -interim injunction order from the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, directing the Appellant Bank by prohibitory order not to do anything inconsistent with the Agreement, and to maintain status -quo. It is further submitted by the Appellant Bank that it filed its written statement before the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, and contested the said application of the Union, contending therein that there was no illegal change committed by the Appellant Bank as there was no contravention of provisions of any clause of the Agreement dated 29th June 1982. The Appellant Bank was obliged to follow directives issued by the Government of Maharashtra under section 29 -A(1) of the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter for short referred to as the MCS Act), by which they were directed by the Government to implement the policy of reservation in favour of schedule caste/scheduled tribes and other backward classes even while filling in the promotional post. The Appellant Bank further submits that after hearing both parties in the said matter. Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai passed order dated 7th April 1998 in favour of the Respondent Union. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 7th April 1984 passed by the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, the Appellant Bank has preferred this appeal on the following amongst other grounds.

(2.) IN Appeal (IC) No. 34 of 1984 filed by the Appellant Bank against the Order dated 26th April 1984 of the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, in the very matter, it is submitted that the learned Labour Judge while passing order dated 7th April 1984 has not given any findings to the effect that the Appellant has committed any illegal change and, therefore, the Appellant fails to understand as to how the learned Labour Judge has paused an order on 26th April, 1984 declaring that the Appellant has committed an illegal change with a further directions to withdraw the same as per the order dated 7th April 1984 passed below Exh. U -2. It is further submitted that since an appeal was preferred to the Industrial Court and as the said Court has already granted a stay on the Order dated 7th April 1984, the learned Labour Judge ought not to have passed any order, which is based on Exh. U -2. The learned Labour Judge has no jurisdiction to pass an order or grant any reliefs on the basis of the order, which is already stayed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1984. The learned Labour Judge has misdirected himself in placing reliance on the Order below Exh. U -2 which was passed by disposing of the interim relief application finally. It is, therefore, prayed by the Appellant in the subsequent appeal that both orders dated 7th April 1984 as well as the order dated 26th April 1984 parsed by the Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai, in Application (LCB) No. 299 of 1982 be quashed and set aside.

(3.) MY findings on the aforesaid points are as under for the following reasons: - -