JUDGMENT : Ravi R. Tripathi, J. Gujarat Bank Workers' Union, a registered Trade Union is before this Court praying that respondent No.4- Bank be directed to start implementing the settlement dated 22.05.2000 with effect from 01.07.2011 and grant revised pay scale along with increments from 2002-03 to the members of the petitioner-Union with all consequential benefits as admissible under the settlement dated 22.05.2000 and be further pleased to direct respondent No.4-Bank to make payment of the arrears from 2002 to 2003 till date. 2. The petition is contested by Manager Shri Rasheshbhai Shah, son of Shri Pravinchandra Shah as authorised by the Committee appointed under Section 81 of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act. 2.1 The Manager was asked to disclose before this Court as to under whose instructions he is contesting this matter, as the Court had felt that there is lot of over-doing on the part of the Manager. The Manager has filed an affidavit affirmed on 30.08.2011 and has placed on record resolution No.11(5) passed by the Administrative Committee in its meeting dated 20.07.2011. The resolution reads as under:- “Gujarat Bank Workers' Union, Panchmahals, has filed SCA No.8968 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and the notice issued therein is received. With the Union, a case is going on in Labour Court. Earlier also, case was filed in the High Court. Keeping all these details in mind, to engage an Advocate on behalf of the Bank and to do all necessary proceedings, the Bank Manager is authorised.” 2.2 The Committee consists of following members, as submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner:- 1. Shri Dipilbhai Raval, Chairman & Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Gujarat State 2. Shri P.S. Patel, General Manager, The Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. 3. Shri Indrasinh C.Mahida Managing Director, The Surat District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 4. Shri L.P. Loh The Banaskantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 5. Shri C.N. Tarpara General Manager, Shri Indrasinh C.Mahida Managing Director, The Rajkot District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 6. Shri D.V. Raval General Manager, Shri Indrasinh C.Mahida Managing Director, The Ahmedabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 7. Shri H.P. Nayak CEO, The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 8. Managing Director The Amreli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 9. Shri P.N. Ninama District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Surat 10. Shri P.R. Vaghera District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dahod 11. Shri J.G. Pandya District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Panchmahals-Godhara 12. Shri P.S. Samraj Manager, NABARD 3. Shri H.P. Nayak CEO, The Sabarkantha District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 8. Managing Director The Amreli District Cooperative Bank Ltd. 9. Shri P.N. Ninama District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Surat 10. Shri P.R. Vaghera District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Dahod 11. Shri J.G. Pandya District Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Panchmahals-Godhara 12. Shri P.S. Samraj Manager, NABARD 3. The petitioner-Union is before this Court having tired, out of the proceedings before the Labour Court being BIR Application No.92 of 2004, which is pending since 2004 and the members of the petitioner-Union are waiting for its outcome, which may result into payment of their legitimate dues by the respondent-Bank 3.1 At this juncture, it will be appropriate to note that another application being BIR Application No.6 of 2006 was filed by the same petitioner before the Labour Court, Godhara on 21.08.2006 and in that application, at one stage, the learned Judge of Labour Court was forced to resort to issuance of bailable warrant to secure presence of the officers of the Bank. It is in Criminal Case No.2 of 2008 that the learned Judge of Labour Court, Godhara was compelled to pass an order on 12.01.2009. As the Bank officers did not comply with the order passed in BIR Application No.6 of 2006-Exh.2 and had resorted to making illegal changes, it was after verification that the Court issued summons under Sections 46 and 106 against the accused. Fortunately enough, on such process being issued, the matter was settled between the parties out side the Court, as is recorded in the same order and application Exh. 19 was filed, to withdraw the complaint and the Court finally passed order recording that, 'as the matter is settled between the parties out side the Court, the complainant is not to proceed further with the case and seeks permission to withdraw the same. In the interest of justice, the accused are ordered to be released uncharged'. 3.2 This is put on record to show the conduct of the persons in-charge of the affairs of this Bank, not only at present but even prior thereto. In the interest of justice, the accused are ordered to be released uncharged'. 3.2 This is put on record to show the conduct of the persons in-charge of the affairs of this Bank, not only at present but even prior thereto. Though BIR Application No. 12 of 2004 is pending, another application being BIR Application No. 6 of 2006 was required to be filed, wherein the party was required to file Criminal Case, wherein the learned Judge was required to issue summons and it was only then, the wisdom dawned upon the officers of the Bank to compromise the matter out side the Court, upon which complaint was dropped. 3.3 This Court will be failing in its duty if it is not put on record as to what was compromised between the parties. This Bank-'Panchmahals District Cooperative Bank Ltd'. had unfortunate days, its financial condition was in cloud and therefore, Reserve Bank of India had to intervene and issue certain directions under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. It was after the said directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 10.05.2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-B to this petition, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat, issued consequential directions under Section 115(A)(3) of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act on 12.05.2003. A committee was appointed for managing the affairs of the Bank. A copy of order passed by Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat, dated 12.05.2003 is at Annexure-C to the present petition. 3.4 This Committee issued direction for 15% cut in salary of the staff /workmen and also decided not to release the increments to the staff /workmen. It was this cut which was the subject matter of BIR Application No.12 of 2004 as well as BIR Application No.6 of 2006. In these proceedings, 'non-cooperation' was exhibited, due to which Criminal Case was required to be filed, which was later on withdrawn after the aforesaid settlement. This happened in the year 2008. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union invited attention of the Court to Annexure-G, page No.74. It is 48th to 54th Annual Report, for the year 2002-03 to 2008-09. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to page No.78, which contains note below Item No.1 of 'Income /Expenses and Profit & Loss'. This happened in the year 2008. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union invited attention of the Court to Annexure-G, page No.74. It is 48th to 54th Annual Report, for the year 2002-03 to 2008-09. Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to page No.78, which contains note below Item No.1 of 'Income /Expenses and Profit & Loss'. The note contains: liability towards payment of Bank staff for the years 2002-03 to 2003-04, which is to the tune of Rs.517.00 lacs. 4.1 Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union then invited attention of the Court to page No.79, which is Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2008. The last column mentions that it is 53rd Annual Report - 2007-08. There under the heading of 'loss, liability' at Sr. No.20, an item is 'expenses due for payment'. The figure is Rs. 5,24,75,000/-. Learned Advocate for the petitioner Union submitted that this is corresponding to earlier note of Rs.517.00 lacs. Besides, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union submitted that respondent No.4-Bank is having deposit of Rs. 452 crores with the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union submitted that this is pointed out only to bring home a fact that the Bank is in no more 'weak economic condition'. Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union further submitted that there is no justifiable reason for which Administrative Committee or for that reason, the Manager is contesting this litigation, as if he has to pay this amount to the staff /workmen from his own pocket. 5. The present petition was filed on 18.07.2011. The first order was passed on 19.07.2011 issuing notice returnable on 27.07.2011. On 27.07.2011, the matter was listed before another Brother Judge, who passed the following order:- “As the matter pertains to Labour Law, Registrar (Judicial) is directed to place this matter before appropriate Court as per the present roster after obtaining permission from Hon'ble the Chief Justice.” 5.1 The matter was then placed on 02.08.2011 and on that day, learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel for respondent No.4-Bank filed an affidavit and the Court granted time to learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 to take instructions from the responsible Officer/s with regard to the action taken against the order passed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act in the changed circumstances. The Matter was adjourned to 10.08.2011. The Matter was adjourned to 10.08.2011. Learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel for respondent No.4-Bank filed additional affidavit and the matter was adjourned to 12.08.2011. (emphasis supplied) 5.2 Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union impleaded RBI as party respondent, to which notice was issued returnable on 24.08.2011. Learned Advocate Mr. Amar N.Bhatt appeared for RBI. He stated that he will be filing his vakalatnama during the course of the day. What follows is important. Learned Advocate Mr. Amar N.Bhatt for RBI, on instructions stated that, 'the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India under section 35.A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 does not prohibit the Panchmahals Dist Co-Op. Bank Ltd. from making payment of salary and other financial benefits including the one which accrue on account of revision of pay'. (emphasis supplied) It will be appropriate to mention here that this exercise was required to be undertaken because it was vehemently argued by learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel for respondent No.4-Bank that the Bank is not able to pay staff members /workmen on account of restrictions imposed by RBI. On the aforesaid statement being made by learned Advocate for RBI, the Court had to observe that, 'In view of the aforesaid statement, it is now for learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing for the respondent No.4. Panchmahals Dist Co-Op. Bank Limited to make clear the stand of the Bank'. 5.3 The matter then came up for consideration on 26.08.2011. The Court, having felt that Manager of respondent No.4-Bank is over-doing, was required to pass a detailed order on that day. The same is reproduced for ready perusal:- “It is really interesting to note that Manager of the Panchmahals District Cooperative Bank Ltd.-respondent No.2 herein has assumed power to instruct the learned Advocate representing the Bank before the High Court without getting instructions from the Committee in a required formate. 2. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 Bank, instructed by its Manager, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed for the reason that for the same relief, BIR Application No.6 of 2006 was filed by one Shri Bupendra R. Parikh, Joint Secretary of Gujarat Bank Workers Union, Panchmahal Unit. The application was filed on 21.08.2006 and later on, the same came to be withdrawn, as can be noticed from order dated 12.01.2009. The application was filed on 21.08.2006 and later on, the same came to be withdrawn, as can be noticed from order dated 12.01.2009. A copy of BIR Application No.6 of 2006 is produced at Annexure-II, page No.99 and copy of order dated 12.01.2009 is produced at Annexure-III, page No.109. 2.1 Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 Bank also submitted that there is yet another application pending before the Labour Court being BIR Application No.12 of 2004. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 Bank submitted that as the prayers in all these applications are the same, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of the details of the aforesaid two applications. 2.2 Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 Bank also submitted that he has instructions to state before this Court that no sooner the Bank is able to get the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulations Act removed and starts functioning (undertakes banking business), he will see to it that the salary as prayed for is granted to the employees of the Bank. What is important is that learned Advocate for respondent No.4 Bank is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. In the course of arguments, he submitted that the employees of the Bank volunteered themselves for cut in salary to the extent of 15%. For bringing home this submission, learned Advocate invited attention of the Court to para-9 of Special Civil Application No.4464 of 2010, which is produced at Annexure-II. For ready perusal, para-9 is reproduced:- “9. It is submitted that Administrative Committee of the Bank has been taken over by the Government of Gujarat because there is misappropriation of Rs.1.25 crores by the elected officer bearers of the bank. For ready perusal, para-9 is reproduced:- “9. It is submitted that Administrative Committee of the Bank has been taken over by the Government of Gujarat because there is misappropriation of Rs.1.25 crores by the elected officer bearers of the bank. It is submitted that employees of the bank has supported the Government appointed committee and accepted 15% salary cut in basic of the employees with the sole intention that bank can survive not only that but from 2003 till date the employees are not getting any service benefits.” 2.3 Incidentally, this petition was filed by the very same Union, which is the petitioner before this Court in the present petition praying that a direction be given to respondent Nos.1 to 3 not to give appointment /reappointment to Shri R.K. Damor, in charge Manager, Panchmahals District Cooperative Bank Ltd. whose extension expired on 8.4.2010 and /or any other person from outside, loan service and on deputation for the reasons stated in the memo of petition. 2.4 It is stated at the Bar that the said petition came to be disposed of on respondents agreeing to appoint the competent person from the staff of the Bank. 3. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4 Bank submitted that it is not open to the petitioner to ask for the benefits, more particularly the voluntary cut accepted by them at least till 2009, the year in which BIR Application No.6 of 2006 was withdrawn (on 12.01.2009). 4. The Court is not able to understand as to why the employees are not entitled to ask for the payment of this voluntary cut accepted by them, because it is specifically mentioned in para-9, reproduced herein above, that it was with the sole intention that the Bank can survive. It is also stated in the said para that the employees are without any service benefits since 2003. 5. Respondent No.4 - Manager is directed to remain personally present before this Court on 30.08.2011 at 11.00 am with the required authorisation from the Committee authorising him to make all these submissions which are prima facie without getting an explicit consent or authority from the Committee. 6. 5. Respondent No.4 - Manager is directed to remain personally present before this Court on 30.08.2011 at 11.00 am with the required authorisation from the Committee authorising him to make all these submissions which are prima facie without getting an explicit consent or authority from the Committee. 6. As the Reserve Bank of India was impleaded as party respondent only for the purpose of making its stand clear and as learned Advocate Mr.Amar N.Bhatt appearing for the Reserve Bank of India has made the stand of the Reserve Bank of India clear, by making a statement on instruction from Reserve Bank of India, Reserve Bank of India is no more required to continue as party respondent in the proceedings. Order accordingly.....” 5.4 On the next hearing, i.e. 30.08.2011, learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel for respondent No.4-Bank was heard, who was instructed by Mr. Rasheshbhai Shah son of Pravinchandra Shah, Manager of the Panchmahal District Co-operative Bank Ltd., who had filed an additional affidavit along-with Resolution No.11(5) of the Administrative Committee passed in its meeting dated 20.07.2011. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank submitted that if any amount is ordered to be paid to the employees of the Bank, it may adversely affect the ratio which is required to be maintained to obtain banking permission from the R.B.I. 5.5 Learned Advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to various documents to bring home the fact that, 'on Note on compliance with Directions issued by RBI', number of relaxations are granted to the respondent - Bank'. He also submitted that RBI has already made a statement on 25.08.2011 that the 'directions issued by Reserve Bank of India under section 35.A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 does not prohibit the Panchmahal Dist Co-Op. Bank Ltd. from making payment of salary and other financial benefits including the one which accrue on account of revision of pay'. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank was therefore directed to place on record the salary payable to the employees of the Bank after releasing the increments which are withheld from 2002-2003 and also to place on record as to what will be the salary payable after grant of revision of pay. Respondent No.4-Bank was also directed to place on record as to what will be the amount payable to the employees on account of pay arrears from 2002-2003 to 31.03.2008. The matter was adjourned to 12.09.2011. Respondent No.4-Bank was also directed to place on record as to what will be the amount payable to the employees on account of pay arrears from 2002-2003 to 31.03.2008. The matter was adjourned to 12.09.2011. 5.6 On 12.09.2011, learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank filed an affidavit along with Annexure - I, II and III. Learned advocate for respondent No. 4 - Bank reiterated that, 'the bank is not able to pay a penny to the depositors - Cooperative Societies of Panchmahal District and that, the Bank is ready to negotiate with the petitioner for the amount payable to the employees of the Bank. The learned advocate for respondent No. 4 - Bank submitted that the employees are not entitled to the amount which they agreed to waive when the bank was in difficulty, that was 15% of their salary'. 5.7 The Court, after taking into consideration the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, directed respondent No. 4 - Bank to make the payment as per the calculation enclosed to the affidavit filed by Shri Rasheshbhai Shah, Son of Pravinchandra Shah, Manager of the Bank. The direction was that this amount shall be paid as early as possible, but not later than 05.10.2011 and the matter was adjourned to 10.10.2011. 5.8 On 10.10.2011, learned Advocate Mr.Y.V.Shah stated that he has filed Civil Application for being impleaded as party and therefore, the matter was ordered to be listed on 12.10.2011. On 12.10.2011, learned Advocate Mr. B.S.Patel was before the Hon'ble the Apex Court and therefore, request was made to keep the matter on 18.10.2011 and the learned Advocate for respondent No. 4-Bank made available for perusal the judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1433 of 2011 dated 30.09.2011, which was filed against order dated 12.09.2011. Relevant part of judgment and order dated 30.08.2011 reads as under:- “4. In view of this, we direct the appellant Bank herein to deposit the amount as directed by the learned Single Judge by interim order dated 12.09.2011, with this Court within a period of three weeks from today i.e. on or before 21.10.2011. Upon deposit of the said amount, the Registry is directed to invest the said amount in Fixed Deposit Receipt. Upon deposit of the said amount, the Registry is directed to invest the said amount in Fixed Deposit Receipt. The principal amount as well as the interest accrued thereon will be paid to the party who will succeed before the Learned Single Judge. 5. With the above direction, the present Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. The interlocutory order dated 12.09.2011 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.8968 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. The parties shall bear their own costs. 6. We request the Learned Single Judge to hear the writ petition expeditiously, subject to His Lordship's convenience." (emphasis supplied) 5.9 The matter was listed before this Court yesterday, when learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank submitted that he has not filed affidavit keeping in mind final hearing of the matter and therefore, matter may not be taken up for final hearing today. The Court is not convinced of the bonafides of the request made on behalf of learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank and hence, Rule was issued returnable today and the matter is taken up for final hearing and learned Advocate Mr.C.B.Patel argued the matter at length, leaving part of the arguments to be made by learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel. Learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel made his submissions to supplement the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. C.B. Patel. Taking into consideration those submissions, the matter is decided finally. 5.10 The aforesaid details are set out only to bring home the conduct of respondent No.4-Bank and more particularly the Manager, who is empowered by the Committee to engage an Advocate and to do all necessary proceedings. 6. One of the important questions fall for consideration of this Court is, 'why a Manager should over identify with matter', as if the Court is going to order payment of the amount which may jeopardies the interest /existence of the bank. At this juncture, it will be appropriate to put it on record that the memo of petition is running into 17 pages, the annexures are running into 18 to 82 pages, the first affidavit in reply filed by the Manager is from page Nos. 83 to 91 and annexures are from page Nos.92 to 124. The rejoinder filed by the petitioner-Union is from page Nos.125 to 133 and annexures are from page Nos. 83 to 91 and annexures are from page Nos.92 to 124. The rejoinder filed by the petitioner-Union is from page Nos.125 to 133 and annexures are from page Nos. 134 to 154, the additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4-Bank is from page Nos.177 to 182 and the annexures are from page Nos. 183 to 214, another affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4-Bank is from page Nos. 214 to 216 and the annexures are from page Nos.217 to 229, another affidavit is filed, which is wrongly paged as 255 and 256, which in fact, should be 230 to 231. It has only one annexure and that is page No.232. Besides that, today, one more additional affidavit is filed which has two pages, i.e. 233-234 and one annexure, i.e. page No.235. Despite these detailed affidavits filed by respondent No.4-Bank, learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank submitted that, 'the Bank has yet not filed affidavit keeping in mind the final hearing of the matter'. It is on account of all these submissions and the conduct of the Manager, the Court felt that the Manager is over-doing in the matter. 7. Certain undisputed facts are:- I. The respondent-Bank was in financial crises for some time and therefore, RBI had to intervene and issue certain directions, as referred to herein above. The RBI issued directions by letter dated 10.05.2003-Annexure-B. It is specifically mentioned in Clause-(v) of that letter that:- “(v) Incurring any expenditure that may be required to be met by the bank in respect of the following items: (a) Salaries of employees; (b) Rent, rates and taxes; (c) Electricity bills; (d) Printing, stationery, etc; (e) Postage and telegram etc.; and (f) Legal expenses not exceeding Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in each case;” II. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions issued by RBI, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, State of Gujarat issued consequential order on 12.05.2003, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-C, page Nos.35 to 37, whereby Committee was appointed to manage affairs of the Bank. III. It was during regime of this Administrative Committee that cut of salary to the tune of 15% was imposed. The case of respondent No.4-Bank is that the employees volunteered for the same. As is mentioned in para-9 of Special Civil Application No.4464 of 2010 and as the things go to show, the sole intention for that was 'Bank can survive'. IV. The case of respondent No.4-Bank is that the employees volunteered for the same. As is mentioned in para-9 of Special Civil Application No.4464 of 2010 and as the things go to show, the sole intention for that was 'Bank can survive'. IV. It is thereafter that the Administrative Committee disallowed any increment to the Bank employees. V. After respondent No.4-Bank was out of those economic crises, the petitioner-Union filed BIR Application No.12 of 2004. Unfortunately, this application is pending till today. VI. BIR Application No.6 of 2006 was filed, wherein Management (may be Manager or may be Administrative Committee) exhibited total noncooperation and therefore, criminal case was required to be filed and it was only after issuance of summons that the Management appeared and stated before the learned Judge that the matter is settled out side and 15% cut is waived since then (that happened in 2008). VII. The fact remains that the members of the petitioner-Union - staff members /workmen are still without 15% salary from 2003 to 2008. They are also without benefits of increments, which fell due from 2003 to 2008. VIII. The staff members /workmen are deprived of the revision of pay though RBI in its directions did permit payment of all this. To reiterate, RBI permitted payment of (a) Salaries of employees; (b) Rent, rates and taxes; (c) Electricity bills (d) Printing, stationery, etc; (e) Postage and telegram etc.; and (f) Legal expenses not exceeding Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) in each case;” IX. Lately, R.B.I.'s presence was sought by this Court and learned Advocate appearing for RBI made a statement before this Court, which is recorded in order dated 25.08.2011. To reiterate, it was stated that, 'On instructions, learned advocate Mr. Amar Bhatt for Reserve Bank of India states that the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India under section 35.A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 does not prohibit the Panchmahals Dist Co-Op. Bank Ltd. from making payment of salary and other financial benefits including the one which accrue on account of revision of pay'. X. The Manager, being wiser than RBI and for that reason, possibly without enlightening the members of the Administrative Committee, is out to contest this matter tooth and nail. Bank Ltd. from making payment of salary and other financial benefits including the one which accrue on account of revision of pay'. X. The Manager, being wiser than RBI and for that reason, possibly without enlightening the members of the Administrative Committee, is out to contest this matter tooth and nail. Though there is deposit of Rs.452 crores with the Gujarat State Cooperative Bank Ltd. of respondent No.4-Bank, though there is sufficient amount set apart for payment of the expenses of salary, as is stated in the 48th to 54th Annual Reports, for the year 2002-03 to 2008-09, though there is mention of liability towards payment of Bank staff for the years 2002-03 to 2003-04 to the tune of Rs.517.00 lacs in the profit & loss account and an amount of Rs. 5,24,75,000/- is mentioned in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2008, the Manager is trying to convince this Court on the point that if this amount of Rs. 3,96,00,000/- is paid, the Bank will go in liquidation. It is this tenacity, which is felt by the Court to be, 'over-doing' on the part of the Manager. XI. This Court has a reason to believe that if the Administrative Committee was made aware of these aspects, possibly, the things would have been in a different complexion. 7.1 In addition to the aforesaid facts, this Court has a reason to believe that the Manager is out to contest the matter with disproportionate vehemence because pursuant to order dated 12.09.2011, though amount was ordered to be paid by 05.10.2011 and matter was kept on 10.10.2011, which order came to be quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and granted time to deposit the amount within three weeks, i.e. on or before 21.10.2011 from the date of the order, i.e. 30.09.2011, a resolution got passed from the Administrative Committee that the amount will be paid within the time prescribed by the Court. This shows that as if there is something personal to this Manager that he is not ready even to comply the order of the Division Bench of this Court by depositing the amount well in time. Today it is already 19.10.2011. This shows that as if there is something personal to this Manager that he is not ready even to comply the order of the Division Bench of this Court by depositing the amount well in time. Today it is already 19.10.2011. Though the order is passed on 30.09.2011, the amount is yet not deposited and along with an affidavit sworn today, which is placed on record, a resolution passed on 13.10.2011 is annexed, wherein it is stated that, 'the amount will be deposited within the time prescribed'. 7.2 The Court could have understood if the Manager had some genuine difficulty and he had some bona fide reason for not depositing this amount even two days in advance and to deposit the amount only on the last day. This is possible only when a person like Manager takes the things too personally. 8. Coming to the contentions raised by learned Advocate for respondent No.4- Bank, he submitted that the petition is not maintainable because the District Cooperative Bank is not a 'State'. As against this, learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union relied upon the following decisions:- I. In the matter of Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust & Ors. v. V.R. Rudani & Ors. reported in (1989) 2 SCC, 691. II. In the matter of Shalin Shyam Shetty & Anr. v. Rajendra Shankar Patelb, reported in (2010) 8 SCC, 329. III. In the matter of Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Dairy Federation Limited & Anr. v. Rajnesh Kumar Jamindar & Ors., reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 221. 8.1 In the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that, 'a writ petition is maintainable' and hence, the Court finds no substance in the submission made by learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank that the Cooperative Bank is not a 'State'. 9. Learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank - of the standing of Mr. B.S. Patel - had an audacity to argue that there is restriction imposed by RBI on respondent No.4-Bank on making this payment. 10. In the opinion of this Court, there cannot be any unmindful submission on the part of a Senior Advocate, in light of the facts discussed herein above. B.S. Patel - had an audacity to argue that there is restriction imposed by RBI on respondent No.4-Bank on making this payment. 10. In the opinion of this Court, there cannot be any unmindful submission on the part of a Senior Advocate, in light of the facts discussed herein above. Still, to reiterate, it is again placed on record that the directions issued by RBI on 10.05.2003 did permit payment of salaries of the employees and in any case, learned Advocate for RBI did make a statement on 25.08.2011 that 'the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India under section 35.A of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949 does not prohibit the Panchmahal Dist Co-Op. Bank Ltd. from making payment of salary and other financial benefits including the one which accrue on account of revision of pay'. (emphasis supplied) 10.1 It was in light of this statement that the Court had to observe that 'In view of the aforesaid statement, it is now for learned advocate Mr. B.S. Patel appearing for the respondent No.4. Panchmahals Dist Co-Op. Bank Limited to make clear the stand of the Bank'. (emphasis supplied) 10.2 Despite this clear position, even today, i.e. much after the aforesaid statement was made almost about two months back, learned Advocate for respondent No.4- Bank has argued that there is restriction imposed on the respondent Bank by RBI. 11. Last but not the least, learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank submitted that as the application is pending before the Labour Court being BIR Application No.12 of 2004, this Court need not entertain this petition and shall dismiss the same on the ground of petitioner-Union having already availed of alternative remedy. 12. The Court is unable to visualise the scenario before the Labour Court, when, with undue vehemence, the Manager is contesting the matter before this Court and is able to stall payment of legitimate dues of the staff members /workmen of the Bank for no valid reason. It was the height of unreasonableness when learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank argued (presumably on instructions from the worthy Manager of respondent No.4-Bank or may be on instructions given by the Administrative Committee to the Manager) that once the employees have accepted 15% cut in their salaries, they are not entitled to claim the same. It was the height of unreasonableness when learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank argued (presumably on instructions from the worthy Manager of respondent No.4-Bank or may be on instructions given by the Administrative Committee to the Manager) that once the employees have accepted 15% cut in their salaries, they are not entitled to claim the same. What is important is this is diagonally opposite to the contents of para-9 of Special Civil Application No.4464 of 2010 wherein in it is stated that:- “9. ..... It is submitted that employees of the bank has supported the Government appointed committee and accepted 15% salary cut in basic of the employees with the sole intention that bank can survive not only that but from 2003 till date the employees are not getting any service benefits.” 12.1 That being so, the Court is of the opinion that it will be justified to make observations against the Manager of the Bank, who is 'over-doing' in the matter. 13. Learned Advocate for the petitioner-Union also pressed into service a fact that there is valid settlement operating between the parties. He submitted that as the settlement is under BIR Act, the same continues to be operative till the same is replaced by another settlement. In support of this submission, the learned Advocate relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble the Apex Court in the matter of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. KSRTC Staff & Workers' Federation & Anr., reported in (1999) 2 SCC 687 . 14. Last but not the least, learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank submitted that respondent No.5- Labour and Conciliation Officer has got no power to direct respondent No.4-Bank as the prayer by the petitioner-Union is under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and even for that reason, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 15. The Court has no doubt that all these submissions are made by learned Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank on instructions from the Manager, as a last attempt so as to frustrate the petition at any cost. The submissions are found to be devoid of any merit. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Respondent No.4-Bank is directed to make payment to the staff members /workmen as per the calculation submitted by the Bank on 21.03.2011, which is on record. The submissions are found to be devoid of any merit. 16. In the result, the petition succeeds and the same is allowed. Respondent No.4-Bank is directed to make payment to the staff members /workmen as per the calculation submitted by the Bank on 21.03.2011, which is on record. In the event, respondent No.4-Bank deposits this amount as directed by the Hon'ble Division Bench then the Registry shall see to it that the amount is paid to the staff members /workmen of respondent No.4-Bank. As there is already direction from the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court to deposit this amount on or before 21.10.2011, no further time limit is required to be prescribed, but the Registry is directed to pay this amount at the earliest but not latter than two (2) weeks from the date of deposit of the said amount. 17. Rule is made absolute. No costs. Petition allowed.