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.7956 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.7956 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.7956 OF 2003 Lahanu Gangadhar Wagh ...Petitioner Lahanu Gangadhar Wagh ...Petitioner Lahanu Gangadhar Wagh ...Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. Karmveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karmveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karmveer Kakasaheb Wagh Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ...Respondent Karkhana Ltd. ...Respondent Karkhana Ltd. ...Respondent ----- ----- ----- Mr.L.H.Patil for the Petitioner Mr.L.H.Patil for the Petitioner Mr.L.H.Patil for the Petitioner Mr. Kishor Patil h/f. Mr. P.N.Joshi for Respondents Mr. Kishor Patil h/f. Mr. P.N.Joshi for Respondents Mr. Kishor Patil h/f. Mr. P.N.Joshi for Respondents CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. CORAM: SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2006 DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2006 DATED: 13TH MARCH, 2006 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the 1. The Petitioner has challenged the order of the under Co-operative Appellate Tribunal dated 17th under Co-operative Appellate Tribunal dated 17th under Co-operative Appellate Tribunal dated 17th September 2003 dismissing his appeal from an order of September 2003 dismissing his appeal from an order of September 2003 dismissing his appeal from an order of the Co-operative Court dismissing his dispute on 1st the Co-operative Court dismissing his dispute on 1st the Co-operative Court dismissing his dispute on 1st January 2000. January 2000. January 2000. 2. The Petitioner is an employee of the 2. The Petitioner is an employee of the 2. The Petitioner is an employee of the Respondent Society. The Petitioner was appointed as Respondent Society. The Petitioner was appointed as Respondent Society. The Petitioner was appointed as Secretary with effect from 1st April, 1983 and was Secretary with effect from 1st April, 1983 and was Secretary with effect from 1st April, 1983 and was given residential quarter. The Petitioner was on a given residential quarter. The Petitioner was on a given residential quarter. The Petitioner was on a fixed monthly salary of Rs.4125/- under an office fixed monthly salary of Rs.4125/- under an office fixed monthly salary of Rs.4125/- under an office dated 26th April 1983. The Petitioner has not shown dated 26th April 1983. The Petitioner has not shown dated 26th April 1983. The Petitioner has not shown any rules regarding the regulation of the terms and any rules regarding the regulation of the terms and any rules regarding the regulation of the terms and conditions of service. conditions of service. conditions of service. 3. The Respondents have passed a resolution of 3. The Respondents have passed a resolution of 3. The Respondents have passed a resolution of the Board of Directors on 29th January 1993 the Board of Directors on 29th January 1993 the Board of Directors on 29th January 1993 terminating the services of the Petitioner. The terminating the services of the Petitioner. The terminating the services of the Petitioner. The 2 Petitioner contends that the agenda of the Board Petitioner contends that the agenda of the Board Petitioner contends that the agenda of the Board Meeting do not show the item regarding the termination Meeting do not show the item regarding the termination Meeting do not show the item regarding the termination of the Petitioner’s service as a separate matter. of the Petitioner’s service as a separate matter. of the Petitioner’s service as a separate matter. Neither any notice was given to the Petitioner, nor Neither any notice was given to the Petitioner, nor Neither any notice was given to the Petitioner, nor inquiry was held and hence the resolution as passed is inquiry was held and hence the resolution as passed is inquiry was held and hence the resolution as passed is void. The Petitioner as an employee of the Respondent void. The Petitioner as an employee of the Respondent void. The Petitioner as an employee of the Respondent challenges the resolution of the Board of Directors. challenges the resolution of the Board of Directors. challenges the resolution of the Board of Directors. The society acts through its Board of Directors. The The society acts through its Board of Directors. The The society acts through its Board of Directors. The working of the Board of Directors forms a matter of working of the Board of Directors forms a matter of working of the Board of Directors forms a matter of the internal management of the Society. the internal management of the Society. the internal management of the Society. 3. The Petitioner is given notice/termination 3. The Petitioner is given notice/termination 3. The Petitioner is given notice/termination order on 30th January 1993. His employment has been order on 30th January 1993. His employment has been order on 30th January 1993. His employment has been terminated from 1st February 1993. He has been given terminated from 1st February 1993. He has been given terminated from 1st February 1993. He has been given the notice pay of one month as per his contract of the notice pay of one month as per his contract of the notice pay of one month as per his contract of service. Consequently a cheque dated 1st February service. Consequently a cheque dated 1st February service. Consequently a cheque dated 1st February 1993 for Rs.4125/- is received by the Petitioner. 1993 for Rs.4125/- is received by the Petitioner. 1993 for Rs.4125/- is received by the Petitioner. 4. The Petitioner’s dispute in the Co-operative 4. The Petitioner’s dispute in the Co-operative 4. The Petitioner’s dispute in the Co-operative Court has been dismissed. The appeal therefrom is Court has been dismissed. The appeal therefrom is Court has been dismissed. The appeal therefrom is also dismissed. also dismissed. also dismissed. 5. Two aspects are considered by the Co-operative 5. Two aspects are considered by the Co-operative 5. Two aspects are considered by the Co-operative Court as well as the Appellate Court. It has been Court as well as the Appellate Court. It has been Court as well as the Appellate Court. It has been showed to the Court that Bank had lost confidence in showed to the Court that Bank had lost confidence in showed to the Court that Bank had lost confidence in the Petitioner, upon observing many deficiencies in the Petitioner, upon observing many deficiencies in the Petitioner, upon observing many deficiencies in his working. This interalia is making use of funds of his working. This interalia is making use of funds of his working. This interalia is making use of funds of the Respondent Society unauthorisedly to pay the Respondent Society unauthorisedly to pay the Respondent Society unauthorisedly to pay additional advances to the contractors in his own additional advances to the contractors in his own additional advances to the contractors in his own 3 capacity and other acts of misappropriation of funds. capacity and other acts of misappropriation of funds. capacity and other acts of misappropriation of funds. The Board of Directors of Respondent was, therefore, The Board of Directors of Respondent was, therefore, The Board of Directors of Respondent was, therefore, within its powers to terminate the petitioner’s within its powers to terminate the petitioner’s within its powers to terminate the petitioner’s service. The impugned order has correctly considered service. The impugned order has correctly considered service. The impugned order has correctly considered these aspects. There is no failure of jurisdiction or these aspects. There is no failure of jurisdiction or these aspects. There is no failure of jurisdiction or any irregularity. The petitioner has relied upon the any irregularity. The petitioner has relied upon the any irregularity. The petitioner has relied upon the Judgment in Judgment in Judgment in Chandu Lal Vs. The Managment of M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc., reported in reported in reported in AIR 1985 Supreme Court, 1128. That, however is a case of an . That, however is a case of an . That, however is a case of an employee governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and employee governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and employee governed by the Industrial Disputes Act and in which loss of confidence would amount retrenchment in which loss of confidence would amount retrenchment in which loss of confidence would amount retrenchment in law. The Petitioner’s employment was a contract of in law. The Petitioner’s employment was a contract of in law. The Petitioner’s employment was a contract of service in the Co-operative Society. Hence, that service in the Co-operative Society. Hence, that service in the Co-operative Society. Hence, that judgment does not apply to the Petitioner’s case. judgment does not apply to the Petitioner’s case. judgment does not apply to the Petitioner’s case. . Consequently the petition is rejected. Consequently the petition is rejected. Consequently the petition is rejected. (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (ROSHAN DALVI,J.)