CHANDRAKANT SHINDE v. THE CHAIRMAN MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK AND ANR
Applicability of Model Standing Orders vs. Service Regulations: Requirement of Notification under Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:26028
Decision Date: 23-12-2025
List of Laws
The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976; Maharashtra Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2009; Maharashtra Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010
- Facts: Chandrakant Shinde, a clerk at Maharashtra Gramin Bank, challenged a Part-I Award by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) which upheld the fairness of an inquiry against him. Shinde was suspended and chargesheeted for alleged misconduct, including collecting donations for union publications and mishandling cash deposits. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty, leading to his removal and dismissal. Shinde appealed, but it was rejected. He then raised an industrial dispute and approached the High Court after conciliation proceedings failed.
- Procedural Posture: Shinde filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the CGIT's Part-I Award, arguing that the inquiry and punishment should have been governed by Model Standing Orders (MSO) under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and not the bank's Service Regulations. The CGIT had ruled against him on preliminary issues, holding that the allegations constituted misconduct and that the Service Regulations applied.
- Issue: Did the CGIT err in holding that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were governed by the Maharashtra Gramin Bank's Service Regulations, rather than the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, particularly in light of Section 13B of the said Act?
- Holding: Yes, the High Court held that the CGIT erred. The Service Regulations would only supersede the Model Standing Orders if they were specifically notified under Section 13B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, which was not the case here.
- Reasoning: The Court relied on previous judgments, including U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Hari Shankar Jain & Ors. and Divisional Forest Officer, Gadchiroli vs. Madhukar Ramaji Undirwade and Ors., to emphasize that mere publication of service regulations in the official gazette is insufficient. To exclude the application of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, the regulations must be specifically notified under Section 13B of the Act. Since the Service Regulations of Maharashtra Gramin Bank were not so notified, the Model Standing Orders should have applied. The court set aside the CGIT's award and the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, awarding him 50% back-wages until his retirement and full retirement benefits. The court noted that the charge-sheet and dismissal were illegal because the inquiry was not conducted under the applicable MSO.
🔒 For Members Only