Bombay High Court
THE JALNA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTORversusJALINDAR YAMAJI JADHAV
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The unilateral stoppage of Dearness Allowance amounts to a prohibited change in service conditions under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the writ petitions are dismissed.
Summary
The Jalna District Central Co‑Operative Bank petitioned the High Court to set aside an Industrial Court order directing it to pay Dearness Allowance (DA) to several retired employees up to their retirement dates with interest. The Bank argued that it had frozen DA in 2010, that the employees had not challenged this earlier, and relied on a post‑retirement agreement dated 7 May 2019. The respondents contended that the freezing of DA was an unlawful change in service conditions and cited earlier judgments upholding DA entitlement. The Court examined prior decisions, notably its own order of 19 December 2025 and the 30 April 2019 judgment in Writ Petition No. 7027/2018, which held that unilateral stoppage of DA violates Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Finding the Bank’s defence unpersuasive and the post‑retirement agreement ineffective, the Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
Issues considered
- The legality of the Bank’s unilateral freezing of Dearness Allowance for retired employees
- Whether the post‑retirement agreement dated 7 May 2019 affects the employees’ entitlement to DA
- Applicability of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Bank’s action
- Whether earlier judgments of this Court bind the present case
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Dearness Allowance
- Co‑operative Bank
- Industrial Disputes Act
- Section 9A
- Change in service conditions
- Retirement
- Writ petition
- Employee rights
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:7890
(1) wp-572-2026 & ors..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.572 OF 2026
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna, Head Office,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Road,
Jalna, Dist: Jalna,
Through its Managing Director,
Ashutosh s/o Jaywantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Service as Managing Director,
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna. ..Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh s/o Gulabsing Rajput,
Age: 68 Years, Occu: Retired,
R/o: Vaibhav Colony, Bhokardan Naka, Jalna,
Tq: Jalna, Dist: Jalna. ..Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.573 OF 2026
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna, Head Office,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Road,
Jalna, Dist: Jalna,
Through its Managing Director,
Ashutosh s/o Jaywantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Service as Managing Director,
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna. ..Petitioner
Versus
Dattu s/o Jayawantrao Pande,
Age: 59 Years, Occu: Retired,
R/o: Dagadwadi, Post: Danapur,
Tq: Bhokardan, Dist: Jalna. ..Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.581 OF 2026
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna, Head Office,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Road,
Jalna, Dist: Jalna,
Through its Managing Director,
Ashutosh s/o Jaywantrao Deshmukh,
(2) wp-572-2026 & ors..odt
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Service as Managing Director,
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna. ..Petitioner
Versus
Jalindar s/o Yamaji Jadhav
Age: 67 Years, Occu: Retired,
R/o: Plot No.01, Vipul Complex,
Old Mondha, Jalna. ..Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.587 OF 2026
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna, Head Office,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Road,
Jalna, Dist: Jalna,
Through its Managing Director,
Ashutosh s/o Jaywantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Service as Managing Director,
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna. ..Petitioner
Versus
Sudam s/o Rambhau Gawali,
Age: 68 Years, Occu: Retired,
R/o: T Shani Mandir, Mondha, Partur
Tq: Partur, Dist: Jalna. ..Respondent
AND
WRIT PETITION NO.705 OF 2026
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna, Head Office,
Santoshi Mata Mandir Road,
Jalna, Dist: Jalna,
Through its Managing Director,
Ashutosh s/o Jaywantrao Deshmukh,
Age: 54 Years, Occu: Service as Managing Director,
The Jalna District Central Co-Operative Bank,
Ltd. Jalna. ..Petitioner
Versus
Sandu s/o Supadasing Pardeshi,
Age: 68 Years, Occu: Retired,
R/o: Mehgaon, Post: Dhawda,
Tq: Bhokardan, Dist: Jalna. ..Respondent
...
(3) wp-572-2026 & ors..odt
Mr. S. S. Tope, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. S. K. Chavan h/f Mr. G. K. Thoke, Advocate for Respondents.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 28th JANUARY, 2026.
JUDGMENT:-
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of
parties, matters are taken up for final hearing at the admission
stage.
2. The present writ petitions takes exception to order dated
06.10.2025 passed by Industrial Court, Jalna in Complaints ULP
filed under Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP
Act, 1971, whereby petitioner-Co-operative Bank has been directed
to pay all due amount of Dearness Allowance to complainants till
date of their retirement alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from
date of complaints till realization.
3. Mr. Sambhaji Tope, learned Advocate appearing for
petitioner would submit that petitioner-Bank has resolved to freeze
payment of Dearness Allowance in year 2010, which was never
challenged by complainants. The present complaints are filed
belatedly after reaching age of superannuation. There has been
inordinate delay in filing complaints. The petitioner-Bank was
bound to implement directives given by NABARD, whereby
restrictions were imposed for maintenance cost @ 2%. Apart from
that, there was agreement between Bank and representatives of
(4) wp-572-2026 & ors..odt
employees. As such, employees are estopped from raising further
claim for release of Dearness Allowance.
4. Per contra, Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate appearing for
respondents supports impugned order. He would submit that
earlier complaints of similarly situated employees of Bank were
allowed by Industrial Court. The Bank had assailed those
complaints in Writ Petition No.13353/2025 alongwith companion
matters. This Court dismissed Writ Petitions by common order
dated 19.12.2025 upholding relief granted by Industrial Court. The
order passed by this Court is not yet challenged before Supreme
Court of India. Mr. Chavan would further rely upon judgment and
order of this Court in Writ Petition No.7027/2018 alongwith
companion matters decided on 30.04.2019, whereby similar issue
regarding non-payment of Dearness Allowance to employees of
Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank Limited has been
considered and decided by this Court upholding claim of employees.
5. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties and on perusal of record
tendered into service, it can be observed that respondents were
permanent employees of petitioner-Bank and they have been
retired from services on attaining age of superannuation. The
petitioner-Bank had withhold payment of Dearness Allowance by
passing general Resolution. The respondents approached
(5) wp-572-2026 & ors..odt
Industrial Court alleging unfair labour practices against petitioner-
Bank and seeking directions for payment of Dearness Allowance
till date of their retirement. In this backdrop, reference can be
given order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court in respect
similarly situated employees in a group of Writ Petitions filed by
petitioners, wherein this Court rejected all objections of petitioner-
Bank to order passed by Industrial Court. This Court categorically
held that unilateral stoppage/freezing of Dearness Allowance
amounts to change in service condition, contrary to Section 9A of
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
6. Pertinently, very same defence was raised on behalf of
Parbhani District Central Co-operative Bank while defending
complaints filed by similarly situated employees. This Court in
Writ Petition No.7027/2018 decided on 30.04.2019 alongwith
companion matters, rejected objections of Bank upholding
entitlement of employees to receive Dearness Allowance. The order
passed by this Court in case of Parbhani District Central Co-
operative Bank was unsuccessfully challenged before Supreme
Court. As such, it has attained finality.
7. In light of aforesaid legal and factual backdrop, this Court
has no reason to deviate from opinion expressed by co-ordinate
Benches of this Court upholding rights of similarly situated
employees while rejecting contentions of petitioner-Bank.
(6) wp-572-2026 & ors..odt
8. Although Mr. Tope, learned Advocate appearing for
petitioner endeavours to factually distinguish present Writ
Petitions from earlier Writ Petitions decided by this Court, there is
no force in such contentions. Mr. Tope further sought to rely upon
agreement dated 07.05.2019. However, it was neither pleaded
before Industrial Court nor had been placed for consideration
during course of hearing of complaints. No explanation is tendered
as to why said agreement was not put into service. Pertinently,
looking to date of agreement i.e. 07.05.2019, it can be observed that
said agreement has been entered into by Employees’ Union after
retirement of respondents. As such, it would be ineffective so far as
rights of respondents to receive Dearness Allowance. Hence, Writ
Petitions sans merit.
9. In result, Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
10. Rule stands discharged.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026
Checking your session…