Gujarat High Court
Surendranagar Peoples Co-Operative ... vs Gujarat Bank Workers Union on 3 April, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1212 of 2016
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7726 of 2013
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1203 of 2016
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7724 of 2013
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1210 of 2016
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7725 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SURENDRANAGAR PEOPLES CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD & ANR.
Versus
GUJARAT BANK WORKERS UNION & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BHARAT T RAO(697) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR CP CHAMPANERI(5920) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
Page 1 of 23
Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024
undefined
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 03/04/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. All these appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been filed by the Surendranagar Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd and its liquidators challenging the common oral judgement dated 23.03.2016, by which, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition.
2. The appellant is a cooperative society which at the relevant time was engaged in banking activity. The Industrial Tribunal by its order dated 12.02.2013, partly modified the judgement and order passed by the labour Court in BIR Application No.2 of 2006, whereby the Labour Court had directed the petitioner bank to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- to each of the 28 workmen concerned in the proceedings.
Page 2 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined By an order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot, the Industrial Tribunal partly allowed the appeals filed by the workmen directing the petitioner bank to pay 50% back-wages from the date of termination of their service until the date of liquidation. It was the case of the learned counsel for the appellant that the bank was declared as financially weak and ordered to be liquidated. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies had directed the bank to reduce the expenditure by 25% to 50% by adopting necessary and appropriate measures.
As a result of certain directions asking the appellant bank to reduce the expenditure, the bank had to take a decision by which 28 employees faced retrenchment.
3. PIL Application No.2 of 2006 was filed before the Labour Court. The Labour Court partly allowed Page 3 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined the applications by judgement and order dated 15.07.2011 and held that the bank in retrenching the 28 employees had carried out an illegal change and therefore the bank ought to pay Rs.75,000/- as lump-sum compensation to each of the 28 employees. Apart from the bank, the workman-Union also on being aggrieved by the judgement and order of the Labour Court, filed appeals before the Industrial Tribunal.
4. The learned Single Judge on appreciation of arguments set out on behalf of the appellant bank and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the employees were retrenched in pursuance of the directions of the Registrar to reduce the expenditure. The challenge to the retrenchment by the Union was on five counts viz. (a) breach of principles of seniority, (b) shortfall in payment of Page 4 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined retrenchment compensation, (c) bank having failed to issue notice of change, (d) bank committing breach of settlement and (e) bank committing breach of para 1 award.
5. The perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that the learned Single Judge held that as far as the seniority principle was concerned, it was not violated which was not even challenged by the Union. As far as the second ground of short payment is concerned, the Labour Court has reached the specific finding that the appellant bank had deducted the allegedly outstanding unpaid amount of housing loan from the amount of compensation and it was in that context that the legality of retrenchment was examined. The learned Single Judge examining the legality of retrenchment, held as under:
Page 5 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined "11.2 The legality of retrenchment of concerned, employees is required to be examined in light of the said fact viz.
deduction of alleged dues of allegedly outstanding housing loan and alleged dues of interest thereon.
11.3 According to Section 25F of the Act contemplates that full amount payable towards the retrenchment compensation should be paid to the concerned (i.e. who are sought to be retrenched) employees (i) in accordance with the formula prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act; (ii) at the time of retrenchment; (iii) and any deduction except/legally statutorily permitted or required deduction e.g. deduction of Tax in accordance with Income Tax Act, should not be made from the amount of compensation.
11.4 The purpose and object of Section 25F is to provide some support to the workman who are / who would be rendered jobless and to reduce or soften their hardships during trying times and period of unemployment. The legislature has made the said provision so that the workman and his family may be able to pass through and come out of unfortunate event. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that deduction / adjustment (of alleged dues) from the compensation amount is permissible or contemplated. Such deduction would vitiate retrenchment. If deduction (of alleged dues) from the amount of compensation is made and that when alleged dues and / or the Page 6 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined calculation / quantification are not admitted, then, in absence of admission and consent by the workman, such deduction would operate against the spirit and object of the provision. According to Section 25- F the workmen must be paid, and they must receive, full and complete amount of compensation, in accordance with formula under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act and any deduction - except legally and statutorily permissible / required deduction
- can not be made.
11.5 The said Section 25-F also prescribes the compensation amount must be calculated and must be paid in accordance with the formula prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. If the compensation amount is not quantified/calculated and/or not paid in accordance with the formula under Section 25F of the Act at the time of retrenchment then it would amount to breach of vital and fundamental condition and requirement for valid and legal retrenchment prescribed by law. The said Section 25F is mandatory and violation of said Section 25F and the prescribed condition would render the retrenchment void-ab-initio.
11.6 In present case, the petitioner bank proceeded on the premise that the alleged amount, (quantification of which was unilaterally done by it) was allegedly outstanding (on part of the workmen) on account of allegedly unpaid amount (towards housing loan and the interest Page 7 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined thereon) and should and it can unilaterally, deduct alleged dues (towards loan and interest) from the amount of compensation. The Bank, thereafter, paid only balance amount to the concerned employees.
11.7 It is pertinent that before passing the order and before effecting the retrenchment w.e.f. 4.9.1996, the petitioner bank had not informed the concerned workmen in advance about exact amount which was allegedly outstanding towards housing loan and allegedly outstanding towards interest thereon and before deducting the amount the Bank had not called for admission with regard to the quantification (calculated by the Bank) of the allegedly outstanding amount of housing loan and/or quantification of allegedly outstanding interest. Thus, Bank had effected the deduction without informing the concerned employees about the quantification of allegedly unpaid loan amount and the interest and also without called for/without recording admission of alleged dues/quantification.
11.8 It is also pertinent that even the Bank has not claimed that the concerned employees had admitted the dues/quantification and had given consent for such deduction from compensation amount. Thus, the deduction was effected without admission and without consent of concerned employees for deduction of any amount from compensation amount. Absence of admission of consent vitiates the Page 8 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined retrenchment and renders it void, except in cases of statutory deduction.
11.9 In present case the Bank deducted the amount of housing loan and interest which were allegedly outstanding at the time of retrenchment from the retrenchment compensation. Thus, by unilaterally deducting such amounts from retrenchment compensation the Bank made short payment in respect of amount payable towards retrenchment compensation i.e. the Bank did not pay the compensation in accordance with the formula under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and consequently the Bank violated vital and fundamental condition and requirement under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act. This action amounts to breach of Section 25-F and invalidates the retrenchment of concerned employees.
11.10 On this count there are certain other relevant aspects which also need to and deserve to be taken into account. They are:-
a. It is also pertinent that neither there was any admission in respect of the quantification of the allegedly outstanding loan amount and/or quantification of allegedly outstanding interest. In this background, the petitioner bank, particularly in absence of admission of alleged dues, could not have deducted said amount from the amount payable towards compensation. Such deduction from retrenchment Page 9 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined compensation payable as per the formula prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act, more particularly in absence of admission about the quantification and/or obligation to pay alleged dues is not permissible and cannot be made.
b. Further, it is not the case even of the Bank that the concerned employees had willfully and voluntarily given their consent authorizing the bank to deduct alleged dues of loan amount and interest from retrenchment compensation. Therefore also, in absence of consent for deducti0on from "compensation amount".
c. Besides this, it is not the case even of the Bank that the mortgaged document or agreement / contract under which the loan was advanced contained stipulation or declaration by concerned workmen autohrising the bank to effect deduction from the amounts payable to the workmen towards retrenchment compensation.
d. Moreover, when the mortgaged documents were in the hands of the petitioner bank, then otherwise also, there was no justification for deducting the amount (allegedly outstanding housing loan) from retrenchment and compensation because the Bank had the remedy of enforcing the mortgage.Page 10 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined e. Having reached the conclusion that the action of the bank deducting the amount towards housing loan and interest from the retrenchment compensation is defective and bad in law and unsustainable.
f. The foregoing discussion has brought out that the conclusion and decision (based on the said defect in retrenchment) by learned Court cannot be faulted."
6. The other grounds on which the retrenchment was challenged is that the Labour Court on referring to the settlement dated 25.06.2004 had found that the bank had agreed to drop the demand to retrench 78 workmen. The Labour Court found that since the termination of the 28 workmen was pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, there was no breach of the settlement dated 25.06.2004. The learned Single Judge however, held that when the bank acted in pursuance of the directions of the Registrar, it was obliged to effect the Page 11 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined retrenchment in compliance of Section 25F. On the perusal of the award of the Labour Court as well as the order of the Industrial Tribunal and having found that there was "an illegal change"
the learned Single Judge observed thus:
"16.1 So as to consider and appreciate the said reasons assigned by the learned Labour Court which are also approved by the learned Industrial Court, it is necessary and appropriate to take into account the provisions contained under Section 46 of the Act. The said Section 46 reads thus:-
"46. Illegal Change - (1) No employer shall make any change in any standing order settled under Chapter VII without following the procedure prescribed therefor in this Act. (2) No employer shall make any change in any industrial matter mentioned in Schedule II - (ai) before giving notice of the change as required by the provisions of sub- section (1) of section 42.] (i) within the period provided for in sub-section (1) of section 44 unless an agreement is arrived at; [(ii) where no agreement is arrived at before the completion of the conciliation proceedings and during the period of ten days thereafter; [(iii) where no settlement is arrived at, after two months from the date of the completion of the proceeding before the Conciliator; (iv) in case where there is a registered submission or in which the Page 12 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined dispute has been referred to arbitration, before the date on which the award comes into operation; [(v) in cases where such matter or a dispute regarding such matter has been referred to a Wage Board for decision, before the date on which the decision comes into operation.] (3) No employer shall make any such change in contravention of the terms of a settlement, [d] [effective award, registered agreement or effective order or decision of a Wage Board]. (4) Any change made in contravention of the provisions of sub-- section (1), (2) or (3) shall be illegal. (5) Failure to carry out the terms of any settlement, award [e] [registered agreement or effective order or decision of a Wage Board], [f] [a Labour Court or the Industrial Court affecting industrial matter] shall be deemed to an illegal change."
16.2 According to Section 3(15) "illegal change" means illegal change within the meaning of subsection (4) or (5) of Section
46. Sub-section (4) of Section 46 provides, inter alia, that any change which is made in contravention of subsection (1) or sub- section (2) or sub-section (3) of Section 46 will amount to illegal change.
16.3 So far as sub-section (1) of Section 46 is concerned, it is not relevant in light of facts of present case.
16.4 So far as sub-section (2) of Section 46 is concerned, it provides inter alia that any change in respect of items mentioned under Page 13 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined Schedule II cannot be made without issuing notice under subsection (1) of Section 42.
16.5 Therefore, the question which arises is; whether "Retrenchment" falls under Schedule II of the BIR Act. When the items contemplated under Schedule II are taken into account, it becomes clear that "retrenchment" is not included as one of the items under Schedule II of the Act and that therefore notice under sub-section (1) of Section 42 of BIR Act was not necessary for effecting retrenchment. Consequently, sub- section (2) and Section 46 was not attracted and applicable in present case.
16.6 However, it would be appropriate to take into account item No.1 and item No.2 of Schedule II. The said item No.1 and item No.2 of Schedule II read thus:- "1. Reduction intended to be of permanent or semi-permanent character in the number of [posts or persons] employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or departments or in a shift not due to force majeure. 2. Permanent or semi- permanent increase in the number of persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or department or departments."
16.7 Item No.1 of Schedule II deals with "reduction" in number of posts or persons employed or to be employed in any occupation or process or departments or in a shift and it further provides that if such reduction is likely to be of permanent or Page 14 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined semi permanent character then such reduction cannot be made without issuing notice under sub-section (1) of Section 42 of the Act.
16.8 So far as said item no.1 of Schedule-II is concerned, it would be attracted in the event of reduction of permanent or semi permanent character in the number of posts or persons, (which is not due to force majeure). Thus, reduction "in number of posts or persons" in department, process etc. is important requirement and the expression "number of posts or persons" is significant for attracting said provision. Either in case of actual reduction or even in case of intended reduction what is relevant and necessary is that the reduction should be in respect of "number of posts or persons" and that therefore there must be evidence to establish that "number of posts"
and "number of persons" in the concerned department, occupation etc. have been fixed/determined and that the retrenchment has resulted into or it will result into the reduction-actual or imminent or intended - is in respect of such "determined/fixed number of posts and/or number of persons", which are determined fixed in respect of concerned process or department or occupation etc. If any reduction in "determined strength" is to be made, then, the matter would come within purview of sub-section (1) of Section 42 of Schedule II and only then the notice contemplated under Section 42(1) read with Section 46(2) would be required.Page 15 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined 16.9 So long as "number" of "posts or persons" was not fixed in respect of concerned process or department etc. before the effective date of retrenchment then the said item no.1 would not be attracted or applicable in respect of "retrenchment" and "retrenchment" would not come purview of said item no.1 of Schedule II.
16.10 In present case, there is no evidence on record to establish that the strength of total number of persons and/or posts in respect of the concerned occupation or process or department from which concerned employees are retrenched was determined in any manner in present case before the effective date of retrenchment. Therefore, item no.1 of Schedule-II of BIR Act is not applicable in present case.
16.11 Now, so far as Item No.2 of Schedule II is concerned, it contemplates semi permanent increase in number of persons which is not relevant for the purpose of present case because there is no increase (permanent or semi permanent) in number of persons. Thus, so far as sub-section (2) of Section 46 is concerned, its applicability is ruled out in light of facts of the cases which arise from retrenchment (and not on account of increase in number of posts and/ or persons).
16.12 Now, so far as sub-section (3) of Section 46 is concerned, it provides that an employer shall not make any change in Page 16 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined contravention of the terms of the settlement or effective award and sub-section (5) of Section 46 provides that failure to carry out any terms of any settlement or award will amount to illegal change. The said aspect is discussed and dealt with herein above, therefore, repetition is avoided. Suffice it so say that the conclusion by the learned Court and the reasons for the conclusion are erroneous and cannot be sustained."
7. Having gone through the detailed judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact and rightly so, that at the time when the proceedings were on, the liquidator was not joined as a party.
However, as observed and in our opinion, rightly so, the scope of the subject matter of the proceedings before the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal was not connected with the subject of winding up or any matter or subject related to arising out of the Cooperative Societies Act and therefore the objection that the Liquidator was not joined had rightly been Page 17 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined rejected. The learned Single Judge after holding thus in para 21 held as under:
"21. The petitions which are filed against two orders where concurrent findings of fact are recorded (though the final direction passed by learned Labour Court is modified by learned Industrial Court, while the findings of fact recorded by the learned Labour Court are confirmed by Industrial Court) any case to interfere with the impugned judgments is not made out. The petitions, therefore, fail and deserve to be rejected and accordingly the petitions are hereby rejected, however, with the direction that the petitioner bank will submit calculation of the amount which would be payable in accordance with the judgment by the Industrial Court to the workman / Union as well as to the office of the concerned learned Labour Court and to the bank where the amount in question is invested. The workman / Union will verify the statement and if calculation by petitioner bank is found to be in order then further amount which would be payable to the workman shall be disbursed in accordance with law. With aforesaid directions and clarification, the petitions are disposed of.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we do Page 18 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined not find merit in the appeals and they are accordingly dismissed.
9. It appears that pending the appeals, several orders were passed by the Division Bench while admitting the appeals. The order dated 15.09.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the appeals, reads as under:
"1.00. RULE. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent in Civil Application No. 11082/2016 and 11075/2016 and Mr.Murli Devnani, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent in Civil Application No. 11081/2016.
2.00. All these applications have been preferred by the common applicant - original appellant / petitioner - Surendranagar Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. and another through its liquidator for an appropriate interim order to stay the further execution, operation and implementation of the impugned common judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge passed in respective Special Civil Application Nos. 7724, 7725 and 7726 of 2013 during the pendency and final Page 19 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeals.
3.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
3.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such during the pendency and final disposal of the main Special Civil Applications before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge granted interim relief directing the original petitioner Bank to deposit the entire amount of back-wages as directed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in the impugned Judgement and Award payable to the concerned workmen and thereafter the concerned workmen were permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount of the back-wages so deposited, however on furnishing Undertaking by the concerned workmen that in case they lose in the petitions, they will return the same.
3.02. It is reported that pursuant to the said interim order, the concerned workmen have withdrawn the 50% of the amount on filing the Undertaking that in the event the original petitioners succeeds in the petitions, they will return the amount. It is reported that the balance 50% amount is lying with the registry of this Court.
3.03. Having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties and considering the above, more particularly when, as such, by the impugned Page 20 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined judgement and order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the main petitions, however, Letters Patent Appeals against the same are admitted by this Court, it is directed that during the pendency and final disposal of the main Letters Patent Appeals, interim relief which was operating during the pendency and final disposal of the main Special Civil Applications is directed to be continued, meaning thereby, the concerned workmen are permitted to retain 50% of the backwages and they need not to return the same, however, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the main Letters Patent Appeals and subject to the ultimate outcome of the main Letters Patent Appeals and on further condition that the concerned workmen shall file fresh Undertaking before this Court in the the main Letters Patent Appeals that in case they lose in the main Letters Patent Appeals and/or the applicant
- original appellant Bank succeeds in the main Letters Patent Appeals, in that case, they will return the said amount with appropriate interest, that may be directed and within stipulated time which may be granted by this Court. Such an undertaking to be filed by the concerned workman within a period of four weeks from today. The applicant - original appellant Bank is permitted to withdraw the balance amount of 50% back-wages deposited by the applicant - appellant Bank which is lying in the registry of this Court, and the same shall be paid to the applicant - original appellant Bank by the registry by Account Payee Page 21 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined Cheque, which shall be kept by the applicant Bank in a separate account. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in the main Letters Patent Appeals and subject to the ultimate outcome of the main Letters Patent Appeals. With this, all these Civil Applications stand disposed of. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."
10. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent workman was permitted to withdraw 50% of the amount that was deposited by the appellant bank which the respondents were permitted to withdraw. The balance amount which was lying with the Registry, was permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant bank and the direction was issued that the applicant bank may keep the same in a separate account.
11. In light of the fact that we are now dismissing the appeals of the bank, the amount that is lying Page 22 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/LPA/1212/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/04/2024 undefined in a separate bank account of the appellant bank pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2017 shall forthwith be disbursed to the respondent no.1 to be paid to the 28 employees who were before the Labour Court and the Industrial Tribunal. Order accordingly.
12. The appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (PRANAV TRIVEDI,J) ANKIT SHAH Page 23 of 23 Downloaded on : Tue Apr 09 20:32:56 IST 2024