THE BUSINESS CO OP BANK LTD AND ANRversusVIRENDRA VIJAY DANI

 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 9723 OF 2026

1. The Business Co-operative
Bank Limited (Through Chief
Executive Officer)


2. The Chairman
The Business Co-operative Bank Limited                                  …..Petitioners


          : Versus :


Virendra Vijay Dani                                                     ….Respondent



Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi with Mr. T.R. Yadav, Ms. Divya Wadekar & Mr.
Mulanshu Vora, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Girish M. Joshi, for the Respondent.



                                       CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                       JUDG. RESD. ON : 6 AUGUST 2026
                                       JUDG. PRON. ON : 18 AUGUST 2026

JUDGMENT :


1)                The Petitioner-Bank is aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 10 July 2026 passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court in
Revision Application (ULP) No. 20 of 2024, dismissing the same and
confirming the judgment and order dated 7 August 2024 passed by the
Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 38 of 2014. By its judgment and

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 1 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


order dated 7 August 2024, the Labour Court has set aside the termination
order dated 22 October 2014 and has directed reinstatement of the
Respondent without backwages but with continuity from 22 October
2014. Respondent-employee’s Revision seeking backwages is also
dismissed by the Industrial Court by order dated 10 July 2026, which the
Respondent has not questioned.


2)              Petitioner is a co-operative bank engaged in the business of
banking. Respondent joined the services of the Petitioner-Bank as Junior
Executive vide appointment letter dated 25 January 2002. He was
promoted as Senior Executive. By order dated 11 September 2014,
Respondent was transferred as Acting Branch Manager of Deolali Camp,
Nashik. Before that, the Petitioner-Bank had effected transfers of 18
employees by order dated 30 August 2014. According to the Petitioner,
Respondent instigated the transferred-employees to protest in front of
head office of the Bank. For administrative reasons, Respondent was
transferred by order dated 11 September 2014. Respondent failed to join
the transferred place and issued notice dated 13 September 2014 to the
Bank, alleging harassment and leveling allegations against the Bank
officials. The Bank responded on 15 September 2014. The Bank also
addressed a letter to the police on 17 September 2014 and 16 October
2014 apprehending leveling of false and baseless complaints by the
Respondent. The Respondent in the meantime failed to handover charge
of his post at Nashik Road head office and forcibly continued to work
there.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 2 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


3)              In spite of repeated attempts by the Assistant General
Manager, Respondent failed to handover charge. The Bank issued letter
dated 16 October 2014 to the Respondent, directing him to handover the
charge and to report at the place of transfer.


4)              In the above background, the Bank issued order dated 22
October 2014, dismissing the Respondent from service stating that it was
impracticable to hold enquiry against him. The Respondent lodged FIR
dated 19 December 2014 in the police station against the Chief Executive
Officer and Manager, HR leveling allegations under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Atrocities
Act).


5)              Respondent approached Labour Court, Nashik and filed
Complaint (ULP) No. 38 of 2014 under Section 28 read with Items Nos.1
(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g) of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and
Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act).
The application for interim relief filed by the Respondent was rejected by
order dated 31 August 2015. Challenge to the said order was rejected by
the Industrial Court. Petitioner filed Written Statement resisting the
Complaint. Respondent examined himself. Petitioner examined 2
witnesses, Mr. Ashok Laxman Bhabad, Chief Executive Officer and Mr.
Vasantrao R. Nagarkar, the then Chairman. By judgment and order dated
7 August 2024, the Labour Court partly allowed the Complaint and set
aside the dismissal order dated 22 October 2014, directing reinstatement
of the Respondent without backwages but with continuity. Cross

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 3 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


Revisions were filed against the order of the Labour Court by the
Petitioner-Bank and the Respondent-employee. By the judgment and
order dated 10 July 2026, both the Revisions have been dismissed.
Petitioner-Bank has accordingly challenged the orders of the Labour and
Industrial Courts by filing the present Petition.


6)              Mr. Jalisatgi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the Labour and Industrial Courts have grossly erred in
setting aside the dismissal order and directing reinstatement of the
Respondent. That Respondent does not answer description of the term
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 (ID Act) and ‘employee’ within the meaning of Section 3(5) of
the MRTU & PULP Act. That the Labour Court has failed to conduct
proper enquiry into the status of the Respondent, who was engaged in
supervisory capacity. That he was in charge of the Legal Department as
per his own letter dated 13 September 2014. That Respondent was also a
Special Recovery Officer having charge of files pertaining to various other
cases. He was coordinating with the advocates engaged by the Petitioner-
Bank. He was attending court cases on behalf of the Bank and was also
instituting cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1888. He was guiding the Special Recovery Officer from time to time and
was occupying the position as Senior Executive. That therefore the
findings recorded by the Labour and Industrial Courts on the issue of
status of the Respondent are clearly perverse. That the Industrial Court
has not gone in the aspect of status at all.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 4 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


7)              Mr. Jalisatgi further submits that Respondent is rightly
dismissed from service for failing to obey the transfer order by handing
over charge of his post despite repeated reminders. That Respondent had
created an atmosphere of terror in his office. That he was in the habit of
lodging false cases under the Atrocities Act against the Bank employees
and officers. That the threat given by him was put in reality by actually
lodging false criminal prosecution under the Atrocities Act against two
bank officials and the said prosecution was ultimately proved to be
completely fallacious. That the Bank cannot retain in service an employee
who was consistently threatening the Bank officials with atrocity cases
and was refusing to obey the valid orders issued by the Bank. That if he
was aggrieved with the transfer, he ought to have challenged the same.
That he was constantly exhibiting incalcitrant behaviour and had become
an element of indiscipline in the Bank. That the misconduct committed
by him is duly proved by leading of adequate evidence. That the Labour
Court has ultimately held that unfair labour practices under Items-1(a)
and 1(f) are not proved. That therefore directions for reinstatement of the
Respondent are clearly erroneous. He would pray for setting aside the
orders passed by the Labour and Industrial Courts.


8)              Per contra, Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent, opposes the Petition submitting that the dismissal is
concurrently upheld by the Labour and Industrial Courts. That the Bank
did not even bother to issue a chargesheet or to conduct an enquiry
against the Respondent. That it is established in the evidence that
Respondent has been promoted in the course of his employment thereby

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 5 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


belying the allegations sought to be levelled against him. That
Respondent was merely given a glorified designation, but he continued to
discharge clerical nature of duties. That the Labour Court has rightly
upheld the status of the Respondent. That the Respondent is harassed on
account of his association with the union and because he took up the
cause of other transferred employees. That he was on the Board of
Directors as representative of the employees and the Bank has subjected
him to victimisation. That only a minor misconduct under Item No.1(g)
of the MRTU & PULP Act is established for which the punishment of
dismissal was grossly disproportionate. That the Respondent was
transferred repeatedly in order to harass him. That he has not committed
any serious misconduct so as to warrant dismissal from service. He
accordingly prays for dismissal of the Petition.


9)              Rival    contentions       of    the    parties     now      fall   for    my
consideration.


10)             The Labour and Industrial Courts have concurrently held
termination/dismissal of the Respondent as bad in law. The Labour Court
has awarded only reinstatement without backwages. As observed above,
though Respondent was aggrieved by denial of backwages and had
preferred Revision Application No.19 of 2024 before the Industrial Court,
he has not challenged order dismissing his Revision. This would mean
that the employee has accepted the position that he would not secure
backwages though the dismissal is held to be illegal. Therefore, the short



_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 6 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


issue that arises for consideration is whether the Respondent is entitled
for reinstatement in service.


11)             The first issue for consideration is whether Respondent was a
‘workman’ within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the ID Act and an
‘employee’ under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act. The Respondent
was assigned the designation of Senior Executive. However, it is well-
settled position that mere designation of a person cannot decide his
status and what needs to be taken into consideration is the nature of
duties and responsibilities performed by him/her. It is the case of the
Petitioner-Bank that Respondent was in-charge of the Legal Department
and that he had an authority to directly deal with advocates and look after
the litigation of the bank. It is also sought to be contended that he
functioned as Recovery Officer of the bank at the relevant time and had
charge of 400 to 500 Awards passed under Section 101 and 91 of the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. However, the Bank did not
produce before the Labour Court any order passed by the Respondent in
capacity as Recovery Officer. Mere working as Senior Executive in the
Recovery Department/Legal Department would not make engagement of
the Respondent ipso facto in managerial, supervisory or administrative
capacity. It appears that the bank’s witness, Mr. Ashok Laxman Babad,
Chief Executive Officer admitted in his cross-examination that Senior
Executive is post lower in rank than that of Branch Manager. He also
admitted that a Senior Executive cannot take any decision relating to
sanction or disbursal of loan. He admitted that Senior Executive does not
exercise any appointment or disciplinary powers over any employees.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 7 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


Merely because he was posted in Bank’s Legal Department or was handed
over files relating to litigations initiated by the Bank, the same would not
ipso facto make the Respondent Manager or Supervisor. Even a Clerk at
times can look after the Legal Department and give instructions to
advocate for prosecution/defence of bank’s cases. There is nothing on
record to indicate that the Respondent has large number of staff
employed under him, whose work he was supervising. Therefore, mere
handling of 400/500 cases while working as Senior Executive would not
make the Respondent a Manager or Supervisor or Administrator. The
Bank did not prove authority in the Respondent to transfer, deploy, grant
leave or decide any service conditions relating to any employees of the
Bank. Even qua the working of the Bank, it appears that Respondent did
not have any authority to take decisions on behalf of the Bank. He worked
under the authority of supervisory officers that headed the Legal
Department. In my view therefore, the Labour Court has rightly upheld
the status of the Respondent as ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the ID
Act and an ‘employee’ under Section 3(5) of the MRTU & PULP Act.


12)             Coming to the merits of the case, the Respondent was
dismissed from service without holding any enquiry. Respondent
functioned as Staff Director on the Board and was apparently involved in
union activities. It is the allegation of the Bank that Respondent was
repeatedly taking shelter behind his status of belonging to backward
category and was repeatedly threatening the management of implicating
them in false cases. The Bank has taken a stand that Respondent had
created an element of terror in the Bank and therefore it was

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 8 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                                   WP 9723 of 2026


impracticable to hold enquiry against him. In the dismissal order,
following reasons are recorded:

          तुम्ही बँकेमध्ये सध्या सिसनि . एक्झि या पदावर कायरत आहात. तुमचे निवरूध्द अतितशय गंभीर स्वरूपाचे
          आरोप प्राप्त ाले असू तुम्ही कामावर असतां ा अतितशय गंभीर स्वरूपाचे गैरवत केल्याबाबत तक्रारी
          तुमचे निवरूध्द आहेत. त्यामध्ये तुम्हाला मुख्य कायालय ाशिशकरोड येथू निद.११/०९/२०१४ च्या
          आदेशान्वये बँकेच्या देवळालीकॅम्प शाखेमध्ये प्रशासकीय कारणास्तव बदली केल्याचे आदेश देऊ
          पदमुक्त होण्याचे आदेश निदले असतां ाही तुम्ही बँकेच्या तथा तुमचे वरीष्ठ श्री बजाज निवजय दयानिकस ,
          असिस. ज रल मॅ ेजर यांचे आदेशां ा केराची टोपली दाखनिवली व सदर आदेशांची पायमल्ली करू जाणू
          बुजू बळजबरी े बँकेचे मुख्य कायालय येथेच रानिहल, कोण मा ी बदली करतो तेच पाहतो, मी
          मागासवगFय आहे हे लक्षात ठे वावे अशा धम या देवू बँक व्यवस्थाप ानिवरूध्व दहशत नि माण केली आहे.
          तुम्ही तुमच्या मागासवगFय असल्याचा गैरफायदा घेवू वारंवार दबावात ठे वत आहात. वास्तनिवक तुमच्या
          जातीनिवषयी व्यवस्थाप ाचा कधीही अ ादर व्हता व ाही अशा परिरक्झिस्थतीत तुमचे वरीष्ठ श्री बजाज
          निवजय दयानिकस असिस. ज रल मॅ ेजर यां ी तुम्हास वारंवार पदभार देणे बाबत सुच ा तथा आदेश
          निदले ले आहे मात्र आजपयPत ते आदेश पाळले ले ानिहत. बँकचे मुख्य कायकारी अतिधकारी यां ा देखील
          तुम्ही धमकानिवले निक, बँकेत सी.ई.ओ मी निटकू देत ाही तुम्ही माझ्या निवरूध्द कारवाई केल्यास
          मनिहलांबाबत खोटया तक्रारी करू तम्हास येथ जाण्यास भाग पाडाल असे सांग दबावात आणले .

          तुमचे वत हे अतितशय उद्धट स्वरूपाचे असू बँकेच्या वरीष्ठ अतिधकांऱ्यांची तमा             बाळगणे तथा
          त्यांचेनिवरूध्द निव ाकारण खोटे ाटे मनिहलांबाबत तसेच मागासवगFयबाबत आरोप करू बँक
          व्यवस्थाप ास दडपणात ठे वत आहात. तुम्ही बँकेच्या वरीष्ठ संचालकां ा अवाच्च भाषा वापरणे , त्यांचे
          अंगावर धावू जाणे, बँकेच्या कमचाऱ्यांसमोर पा उतारा करणे, बैंक बंद पाडण्याची धमकी देणे इत्यादी
          निवघातक कारवाया केल्या असू बँकेबाबत ज मा सात तथा बँकेच्या ग्राहकांमध्ये संभ्रम नि माण करण्याचे
          काम केले असू त्यामुळे बँकेच्या इभ्रतीस धोका पोहचेल, बँकेचे ाव खराब होईल आशिण बँकेस ुकसा
          होईल अशी बँकेच्या निहताचे निवरूध्द कृत्य केले ले आहे . तसेच बँकेच्या पदातिधकाऱ्यांनिवरूध्द लोकां ा
          भडकावू तथाकशिथत घोटाळयांच्या तक्रारी करण्यास प्रवृत्त करणे इत्यादी कृत्य करू बँक
          व्यवस्थाप ास सळो की पळो करू सोडले आहे.

13)               Since enquiry was not conducted, the burden was on the
Petitioner-Bank to justify its action by leading evidence. The Bank
examined Mr. Ashok Laxman Babad, Chief Executive Officer and Mr.
Vasantrao R. Nagarkar, the then Chairman as its witnesses. Perusal of the
Affidavit of evidence of Mr. Ashok Laxman Babad would indicate that his
evidence on the misconduct is totally vague. He leveled general
allegations against the Respondent of arrogant behaviour and creation of
an atmosphere of terror. It would be appropriate to reproduce substantial
part of Affidavit of evidence of Mr. Ashok Laxman Babad which is as
under:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                           PAGE NO. 9 of 17
                                            18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026



          4. I say that the complainant was working on a very responsible post of senior
          executive in the Respondent Bank. Banking is a very sensitive business and a
          very delicate issue of public money is involved. Therefore, the employees and
          staff-members are required to show due diligence and sincerity while working.
          However, the complainant showed a very arrogant attitude and created a terror
          atmosphere in and around the Bank. The complainant on 11.09.2014 was
          transferred for administrative reasons from main branch to Deolali branch of
          the Bank and was instructed to handover the charge. Distance between both
          these branches is only 7 km. Still the complainant did not obey the order of
          transfer and showed no respect to the order / instructions of his superior Mr.
          Vijay Dayakisan Bajaj, Asst. General Manager and in utter disregard of his
          orders, deliberately and forcibly remained at main branch only. The
          complainant threatened the bank management saying that "mukhya karyalayay
          ethech rahil, kon majhi badali karto tech pahato, me magasvargiya ahe he
          lakshat theva" and thus created tensed atmosphere in the Bank.


          5. I say that the complainant time and again was taking undue advantage of his
          being from a backward class society. The management of the Bank has nothing
          to do with the caste and religion of its employees however the complainant time
          and again tried to take undue advantage of the same and used it against the
          management as weapon. That the general manager Mr. Vijay Bajaj time and
          again instructed and ordered the complainant for handing over the charge
          however the complainant didn't pay any heed to the same. Not only this but
          also the complainant as a pattern of his behavior has threatened the chief
          executive officer of the Bank saying that "Banket me CEO tiku det nahi, tumhi
          majhya viruddha karvai kelyas mahilanbabat khotya takrari karun tumhas
          yethun janyas bhag padel and actually put undue pressure on the CEO. That the
          complainant many times has actually mis-utilized his being from scheduled cast
          against the top officials of the management with a view to keep the
          management under pressure.


          6. I say that the complainant was thus keeping the management under pressure
          by threatening them about false cases about ladies and atrocity. Not only this
          but also the complainant had used filthy and abusive language with
          unconstitutional gestures against the senior directors of the Bank and rushing
          onto them with an intent of assaulting. He has many times threatened that he
          would close the Bank and used most unconstitutional language against the
          Senior Directors of the Bank in the presence of various employees and directors
          of the Bank.


          7. I say that the complainant crossed limits when he indulged into an act of
          spreading false news of Bank being closed and created confusion in the minds of
          the customers against the Bank Management. Due to these acts of the
          complainant the Bank lost its goodwill in public. This acts on the part of the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 10 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


          complainant is against the interest of the Bank thereby causing loss of goodwill.
          Further the complainant was involved in the acts of instigating people against
          the management by spreading false rumors and thereby provoking them to
          lodge complaints against the management with an ulterior motive to put the
          management under pressure and to recognize complainant's nuisance value.
          Due to all these activities of the complainant, the managementhad lost
          confidence in him and found that his presence in the service and on the
          premises of the Bank could further damage the goodwill and interest of the
          Bank.


          8. I say that the approach of the complainant was so fearful that conducting an
          enquiry against him also would have been proved to be very difficult and non
          practical as the complainant is in a habit of making false allegations of any kind.
          Therefore, the management was forced to take a decision to dismiss him from
          the services and thereby reserved its rights to prove the charges leveled against
          him in the Hon. Court.


          9. I say that the said act on the part of the complainant is serious act of
          misconduct. However, the complainant was keen in gathering other employees,
          giving threats, instigations to other employees and customers, using abusive
          and filthy language to the senior officers as well as directors of the Bank,
          Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Bank. The behaviour of the complainant
          was beyond control.


          10. I say that due to the said circumstances, the presence of complainant
          became dangerous to respondent bank, hence, it was not possible for the
          respondent bank to conduct disciplinary/ departmental enquiry against the
          complainant. It was also dangerous and detrimental for respondent bank to
          keep the complainant in the services of respondent bank taking into
          consideration the serious misconduct committed by the complainant and hence,
          the respondent bank decided to dismiss the services of the complainant. It is
          submitted that, due to the terror and tense atmosphere created by the
          complainant, it was not possible for the respondent bank to hold departmental
          enquiry. Hence, the respondent bank has reserved the right to prove the charges
          of said misconduct before the Hon. Court.


14)              Perusal of the above evidence would indicate that there is
absolutely no reference to any particular incident with reference to date,
time etc. Mr. Babad has also not led any specific evidence in relation to
any personal interaction with the Respondent. Thus, the evidence of Mr.
Babad is insufficient for holding that the allegations levelled in the
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 11 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


dismissal order are proved before the Labour Court. Even qua the alleged
threat given to the CEO about implication in false cases relating to
women, there are no particulars. To whom the threat was given is unclear.
The witness was himself the CEO. However the Affidavit of Evidence is
silent as to whether the said threat was given by the Respondents to him.
The witness has made a vague statement in his Affidavit that “Not only
this but also the complainant as a pattern of his behavior has threatened the
chief executive officer of the Bank saying that "Banket me CEO tiku det nahi,
tumhi majhya viruddha karvai kelyas mahilanbabat khotya takrari karun
tumhas yethun janyas bhag padel and actually put undue pressure on the
CEO.” If this threat was given to the witness, he ought to have stated that
the threat was given to him and ought to have disclosed the date, time,
place etc. of the incident. Regarding the alleged threat given after his
transfer, the same was apparently given to Mr. Vijay Dayakisan Bajaj,
Asst. General Manager. However he is not examined as a witness before

the Labour Court.


15)               To make the case of the Bank worse, Mr. Ashok Laxman
Babad gave several admissions in his cross-examination. He admitted
that no chargesheet was ever issued to the Respondent during his past
service.        Though he spoke of memos and letters, the same were not
produced on record. He admitted that no Director of the Bank had raised
any complaint against the Respondent. He also admitted that except Mr.
Vaidya and Mr. Pund, Respondent never filed any atrocity complaint
against any other Director or bank official. Thus, evidence of the witness



_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 12 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


Mr. Ashok Laxman Babad does not make out a case of misconduct being
committed by the Respondent as alleged in the dismissal order.


16)             Coming to the evidence of Mr. Vasantrao R. Nagarkar, Ex-
Chairman, his evidence is absolutely vague. He gave evidence of
Respondent threatening the CEO of the bank saying that “Banket me CEO
tiku det nahi, tumhi mazya viruddha karvai kelyas mahilanbabat khotya
takrari karun tumhas yethun janyas bhag padel”. However, to whom such
statement was uttered and what was the date of making that statement, is
not disclosed by the witness. Whether he was personally present when
such utterances were made is also unknown. The evidence of the Ex-
Chairman is thus equally vague, lacking in material particulars such as
date, time etc. In his cross-examination, he gave several admissions of
Respondent being promoted during the course of his employment. He
admitted that he was not an eye witness to any of the incidents. He
admitted that he himself did not make any complaint to the police
station.


17)             Considering the overall evidence on record, it is difficult to
hold that the Petitioner-Bank was in a position to prove every allegation
leveled in the dismissal order. However the misconduct of refusing to join
the transferred post is proved against the Respondent. The Labour Court
has rightly concluded that the case does not involve loss of faith merely
because the Respondent refused to join the transferred place. The only
charge which is proved against the Respondent is refusal to obey the
transfer order. May be his conduct post issuance of the transfer order is

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 13 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


not conducive to the discipline expected from an employee. However for
this misconduct, punishment of dismissal was clearly unwarranted. The
Labour Court has rightly set aside the dismissal order. Since some
misconduct is proved against the Respondent, he is denied backwages.
The Industrial Court has correctly upheld the order passed by the Labour
Court. The Industrial Court has also dismissed the Revision preferred by
the Respondent seeking payment of full backwages.


18)             In the present case, the Bank took the risk of not conducting
any disciplinary enquiry against the Respondent. The allegations levelled
in the dismissal order were vague without any reference to date, time etc.
At least before the Labour Court, the Respondent-Bank ought to have
proved the allegations by leading cogent evidence. Also, both the
witnesses examined by the Bank gave vague evidence without any
material particulars. The Bank ought to have examined the witnesses
who were allegedly threatened by the Respondent. The incident has
essentially arisen on account of transfer of the Respondent from Head
Office to Deolali Camp office. Respondent is obviously not right in
refusing to obey the transfer order and to insist upon working at the
previous posting without handing over the charge. For this misconduct,
the Labour Court has rightly denied him backwages. However, on the
basis of vague allegations of creating an atmosphere of terror by
repeatedly threatening the bank officials, the dismissal order cannot be
sustained. In my view therefore, the Labour Court has rightly set aside the
dismissal order and the Industrial Court has correctly upheld the order of
the Labour Court.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 14 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


19)       Mr. Jalisatgi has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Colour-
Chem Ltd. Versus. A.A. Alaspurkar & Ors. 1 in support of his contention
that even for proof of misconduct under Item No.1(g) of Schedule-IV of
the MRTU & PULP Act, termination/dismissal can be ordered. However,
in the case before the Apex Court, the charge was of sleeping on duty and
negligence in keeping the machine in working state without putting
necessary raw material therein. As against this, the misconduct proved
against the Respondent is only of defying the order of transfer. The ratio
of the judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case.


20)             The Labour Court has ordered reinstatement of the
Respondent w.e.f. 22 October 2014. The Labour Court’s order is passed 10
years after dismissal on 7 August 2024. It appears that on account of
pendency of cross Revisions, the Bank has not yet implemented the order
of the Labour Court. Thus, period of 12 long years has elapsed from the
dismissal of the Respondent. Respondent joined the services with the
Petitioner-Bank on 25 January 2002 and by the time of dismissal, he has
rendered about 12 years of service. Thus, for equivalent period, the
Respondent is out of service. His age at the time of filing the Complaint
i.e. 30 October 2014 was declared as 38 years. This would mean that the
Petitioner is now at an advanced age of                   50 years.      The relationship
between the parties has soured on account of pendency of litigation. In
my view therefore, it would not be in the interest of both the parties that
Respondent joins back the services of the Petitioner-Bank. In my view
therefore, it would be appropriate to award lumpsum compensation to the
Respondent in lieu of reinstatement. The Labour Court’s order is dated 7

1   (1998) 3 SCC 192
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 15 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
 Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


August 2024, after which the Petitioner-Bank was under obligation to pay
full backwages to the Respondent. He was accordingly drawing wages of
Rs.23,000/- at the time of his dismissal. He is left with 8 years of service if
age of retirement is considered as 58 years and 10 years of service if age of
retirement is considered as 60 years. Respondent has committed some
misconduct in showing incalcitrant attitude in openly defying the orders
issued by the Bank and challenging the authority of Director and officials
of the Bank. Such conduct on the part of the Respondent is subversive to
the discipline of the Bank. The Bank is justified in punishing the
Respondent, but it went overboard by dismissing him from service. The
Bank could have either examined the witnesses who were threatened by
the Respondent by deposing about the details of misconduct. It has failed
to do so. Therefore, only the misconduct of defying the orders is proved.
For this misconduct, some other punishment could have been imposed
such as withholding of increments or reversion, etc. The conduct of the
Respondent in levelling false allegations of atrocities against the Bank
Officials also does not appeal to this Court. For discharging their duties,
they cannot be made to undergo criminal prosecution and spend time,
energy and money in defending themselves. Considering the overall
conspectus of the case, in my view, interest of justice would be met if
Respondent is awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- in
lieu of reinstatement and wages payable after the order of the Labour
Court. Such lumpsum compensation would include all dues payable by
the Petitioner-Bank to the Respondent in respect of his service.




_______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                     PAGE NO. 16 of 17
                                       18 August 2026
                       Neeta Sawant                                                         WP 9723 of 2026


                      21)                   I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:


                                      (i)   Judgment and order dated 7 August 2024 passed by the
                                      Labour Court, Nashik in Complaint (ULP) No.38 of 2014 and
                                      judgment and order dated 10 July 2026 passed by the Member,
                                      Industrial Court, Nashik in Revision Application (ULP) No.19-20
                                      of 2024 are modified by directing that Respondent shall not be
                                      entitled to reinstatement or continuity with the Petitioner-Bank.


                                      (ii) Petitioner-Bank shall pay to the Respondent lumpsum
                                      compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and
                                      wages towards full and final settlement of all service-related
                                      claims of the Respondent.


                                      (iii) Beyond the lumpsum compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- so
                                      awarded, the Respondent shall not be entitled to any other
                                      service-related    benefits   from     the    Petitioner-Bank,        except
                                      Provident Fund. The awarded compensation shall be paid by the
                                      Petitioner to the Respondent-employee within a period of 2
                                      months, failing which Respondent shall be entitled to interest @
                                      8% p.a. from the date of awarded compensation after expiry of
                                      period of 2 months.


                      22)                   With the above directions, the petition is partly allowed and
                      disposed of.

         Digitally
         signed by
         NEETA
NEETA    SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
                                                                             [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
SAWANT   Date:
         2026.08.18
         17:58:48
         +0530        _______________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                            PAGE NO. 17 of 17
                                                              18 August 2026