- (1.) This petition was admitted by order dated 27/04/2006.
(2.) On 17/04/2009, this Court passed the following order : "1. Heard. 2. The recovery notices issued by the petitioner were held to be improper vide the impugned order dated 30,9,2005, rendered by the Industrial Court, Latur. 3. The learned Advocate for the petitioner states that the employees are now likely to be superannuated and the recovery will become impossible. Therefore, she seeks interim relief. 4. Mr.Yenge, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent is said to have been now in the panel of advocates of the petitioner and, therefore, Mr.M.P.Gude, learned advocate has filed vakilpatra for the Respondent. The name of Mr.Yenge, be deleted and he be deemed as discharged instead of Mr.M.P.Gude's appearance be shown. 5. The petitioner is at liberty to withhold the disputed amount from the final payments to be made to the members of the Respondent No.1 at the time of payment of the retiral benefits but not from the gratuity amount and such deducted amounts be invested so as to earn proper interest. The disbursement of such invested amounts shall be subject to final decision in the petition. The final hearing of the petition is expedited and be scheduled for final hearing in the 2nd week of November, 2009."
(3.) The submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners can be summarized in brief as under : [a] The Latur Division of the MSRTC was established on 02/05/1986. [b] The Government Auditor raised an objection on 27/12/2001 while conducting the Government audit. [c] The Government Auditor points out a loss of Rs.2,51,43,000/ caused to the petitioners on account of payment of wages for 3rd day working. [d] The report is that several employees have earned wages for 3rd day without actually working on the third day. [e] Notices were issued to 671 workers contending that they have illegitimately acquired the said amounts and the said amounts therefore deserve to be recovered from them. [f] A specimen copy of the notice dated 02/02/2005 is placed on record by which each of the employees concerned were directed to repay small/meager amounts. In the event, they are unable to pay, same was to be deducted in installments from their salaries. [g] The respondent/employees preferred Complaint (ULP) No.30/2005 for challenging the impugned notice dated 02/02/2005 seeking recovery against 671 workers. [h] By judgment dated 30/09/2005, the Industrial Court partly allowed the complaint and set aside the notice of recovery dated 02/02/2005. [i] A settlement was signed between the Union and the workers with the petitioner/Organization by which the drivers and conductors agreed to work on the 3rd day by taking some rest. [j] The abovesaid settlement dated 16/10/1999 has not been challenged or set aside. [k] The Industrial Court has framed issues and has answered issue No.2 and 4 against the petitioners. [l] Since the amounts to be recovered were meager, the petitioner/ Corporation did not initiate disciplinary proceedings against any of the workers. [m] Despite these workers having not worked on the 3rd day, each of them accepted the payment even for the 3rd day as the concerned officials marked their attendance for the same. [n] This petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.;