Bombay High Court

THE JALNA DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OPERATIVE BANK THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTORversusSUDAM RAMBHAU GAWALI

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The unilateral freezing 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 challenged an Industrial Court order directing it to pay Dearness Allowance (DA) with interest to several retired employees. The bank argued that it had frozen DA in 2010, that the employees had not challenged this earlier, and that a post‑retirement agreement with the employees’ union barred further claims. The respondents contended that the freeze violated their service conditions and cited earlier High Court judgments upholding DA entitlement. The Court examined the factual record, noted the employees were permanent staff who retired, and relied on its own prior order of 19‑12‑2025 and the precedent of Writ Petition No.7027/2018, which held that unilateral stoppage of DA is a prohibited change in service conditions under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It rejected the bank’s distinction based on the 2019 agreement as ineffective and dismissed all the writ petitions. The rule was discharged.

Issues considered

The Industrial Court’s order directing payment of Dearness Allowance with interest to retired employees is lawful.
Whether the unilateral freezing of Dearness Allowance by the bank constitutes a change in service conditions prohibited under Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether a post‑retirement agreement between the bank and the employees’ union can bar the employees’ entitlement to Dearness Allowance.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 9A
MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 — s. Item Nos.9 and 10 of Schedule IV

Subjects

Dearness Allowance
Industrial Disputes Act
Section 9A
Co‑operative bank
Employee rights
Unfair labour practice
Service conditions
Interest on arrears

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:7891
                                         (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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…