:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.757 OF 2008 Dhanaji Dhondiram Salunkhe .. Petitioner. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board Servants Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.851 OF 2008 Sarjerao Shankar Desai .. Petitioner. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board Servants Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. and Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioners. Mr.Amit Borkar for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. DATED : 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These two writ petitions challenge the orders dated 18.9.2007 and 19.9.2007 passed in Appeal Nos.8 and 9 of 2006 filed by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board Servants Credit Co-op. Society Ltd. (for short "the society") whereby they had challenged the identical orders passed by the Co-operative Court by which the said appeals filed by the society were allowed and their disputes came to be remanded to the trial Court for deciding them on merits. The Co-operative Court had dismissed the disputes bearing Nos.370 and 371 of 2001 filed under :2: :2: :2: section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") as not maintainable. 3. It appears that the petitioners in both the petitions are the members of the society and they are the employees of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board. They had taken loan from the society for which tripartite agreement was entered into between the society, the employer and the petitioners as provided for under section 49 of the Act. Under this agreement the employer was obliged to deduct an instalment of loan from the salary payable to the petitioners by them and to pay to the society the amount so deducted in satisfaction of the debt of society against the petitioners. Admittedly, the employer did not deduct such amount and as a result thereof the debt against the petitioner in both petitions remained to be paid and in view thereof the society filed the diputes under section 91 of the Act against the petitioners and their employer. 4. Against the backdrop of these facts Mr.Patwadhan, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that under section 49 of the Act the employer becomes personally liable if he does not deduct the amount from the salary of employee, who is a member of the society, and pay it to the society. :3: :3: :3: He further submits that if the employer does not deduct the amount as contemplated by section 49 the only remedy open to the society is to proceed against the employer under the provisions contained in section 49 of the Act. He then submitted that under any circumstances the society cannot recover the dues from both, that is, the petitioners and their employer unless the dues are crystalised in the manner indicated under section 49 of the Act. 5. Section 49 undoubtedly provides a remedy against the employer in the event the employer fails to deduct the amount specified in the requisition from the salary payable to the member concerned and the society in such eventuality can proceed against the employer to recover such amount together with interest thereon at one and half times the rate of interest charged by the society to the member for the period commencing on the date on which the amount was due to be paid to the society and ending on the date of actually remitting it to the society and such amount together with interest thereon, if any, shall, on a certificate issued by the Registrar, be recoverable from him as an arrear of land revenue, and the amount and interest so due shall rank in priority in respect of such liability of the employer as wages in arrears. From mere perusal of the :4: :4: :4: provisions contained in section 49 it is clear that it provides remedy to the society to proceed against the employer. From the language of this provision it is not possible to hold that the society cannot avail any other remedy such as filing of the dispute under section 91 of the Act against its employee, who is primarily responsible to repay the loan. There is no such bar against the society to file a dispute under section 91 of the Act against its member. It is for the society to elect its remedy when more than one remedies are available in law to recover the amount due and payable to the society against a member or the employer more particularly when the employer has failed to deduct the amount from the salary payable to the member. In the present case the society has elected to file a dispute against its member under section 91 of the Act and has also joined the employer as party to the dispute. Merely because the employer is also added as a party to the dispute would not mean that the dispute under section 91 is not maintainable. It is always open for the Co-operative Court if it comes to a conclusion that there cannot be an order against the employer in the dispute under section 91 to say so while disposing of the dispute. In my opinion,the dispute on this ground is not liable to be dismissed. Since that is not the issue I am not expressing any opinion at this :5: :5: :5: stage of proceedings. Insofar as the crystalisation of dues is concerned, the co-operative court has sufficient powers to go into the issue by allowing the parties to lead evidence, if necessary, and record its finding in the final judgment disposing of the dispute. In the circumstances these two writ petitions are dismissed. The Co-operative Court shall decide the disputes on merits in accordance with law. With these observations the writ petitions are disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)