2022 (8) TMI 1370 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of Interim Relief - dismissal of writ petition - withdrawing the concession in question, which had remained in force for more than two decades - what interim protection can be granted in favour of the appellants at this stage? - HELD THAT - Since the action impugned in the writ petition is the policy decision of the management, which learned Single Judge has upheld, it is not considered proper to direct the respondent Bank to continue to extend the said benefit to its officers, during pendency of appeal. At the same time however, the officers need to be protected qua recovery from their salary and also against any consequential coercive proceedings by any of the authorities. Consequently, it is ordered that, the appellant Federation / officers are protected to the extent that, during pendency of this appeal, no recovery shall be effected from their salary and also that, no consequential coercive proceedings shall be instituted by any of the authorities against them. The benefit which is withdrawn by the Management and which is not interfered in writ petition, can not be and is not directed to be continued to be extended to the appellants, during pendency of the appeal. Liberty is reserved to the parties to move the Court for early hearing of the appeal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order dated 24.06.2022 recorded on W.P. No.11991 of 2014 - Dismissal of writ petition - Interim relief for appellants.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to an appeal challenging an order dated 24.06.2022 recorded on W.P. No.11991 of 2014. The appeal was made by the original writ petitioners. The Court heard arguments from both sides, with Ms. R.Vaigai, a learned senior advocate, representing the appellants, and Mr. E.Om Prakash, another learned senior advocate, representing the Management/respondents 1 and 2. The advocate for the appellants argued that the dismissal of the writ petition required a re-look on multiple grounds, including the fact that the appellants should have been heard before withdrawing a concession that had been in force for over two decades. The Court acknowledged that the matter required further consideration and admitted the appeal for detailed examination.

Regarding the request for interim relief, the Court deliberated on the extent of protection that could be granted to the appellants during the pendency of the appeal. The Court noted that the impugned action was a policy decision of the management upheld by a learned Single Judge. While the Court refrained from directing the respondent Bank to continue extending the benefit in question to its officers, it recognized the need to protect the officers from salary deductions and coercive proceedings. Consequently, the Court ordered that no recovery should be made from the officers' salary during the appeal's pendency, and no coercive proceedings should be initiated against them. The Court clarified that the benefit withdrawn by the management, which was not interfered with in the writ petition, would not be directed to be continued during the appeal. Additionally, the Court reserved liberty to the parties to seek an early hearing of the appeal if required.