Hazaribagh Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Bhola Prasad
2011-06-13
JAYA ROY, PRAKASH TATIA
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
Order Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The matter has been listed alongwith the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as the appeal has been preferred after delay of 62 days. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 4. The I.A. No. 525 of 2011 stands disposed of. 5. Heard on the merit of the case. 6. According to the learned' counsel for the appellant, the impugned order 18th November, 2010 was passed without hearing the appellant and has been passed only after hearing the counsel for the State, whereas admittedly, the writ petitioner was the employee of the appellant. 7. We have perused the impugned order dated 18th November, 2010 and it appears that petitioner/respondent's claim that he was employee of the Hazaribagh Co-operation Bank Limited and just three days before his superannuation i.e. 31.8.2008 his services were terminated. Petitioner/respondent's grievance is only to the limited extent that he has not been paid the amount payable towards G.P.F., Gratuity and Leave Salary though he is entitled for the aforesaid amount. 8. Petitioner/respondent's contention is that he has filed several representations but the appellant did not respond to it. In that situation, the only direction was issued by the learned Single Judge to the petitioner to file fresh representation before respondent no. 5 (Managing Director, Hazaribagh Central Co-operative Bank Limited) alongwith a copy of the order passed by learned Single Judge within a period of three weeks and the respondents were directed to take decision in the matter of payment of retrial dues within a period of four weeks thereafter. Therefore,' the impugned order is only directed the appellant to decide the representation of the writ petitioner and therefore the appellant cannot be said to be aggrieved and they are supposed to decide the representation in accordance with law. 9. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed.