1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4008 OF 2009 The Chairman, Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., ..Petitioner V/s Shrikrishna V. Sambhus ..Respondent ---- Mr.Mayuresh Modgi for the petitioner. Mr.S.N. Deshpande for the respondent. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 9th November, 2009. PC 1 This is a writ petition filed by the original employer impugning the orders of two lower courts under Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 as confirmed by the appellate authority under the said Act being the Deputy Commissioner of Labour. Both the impugned orders allowed the claim of the respondent for gratuity. Admitted position is that the respondent is not a workman. He was earlier terminated by the petitioner and that termination order was challenged in the Co-operative Court. The Co-operative Court granted a declaration that termination was bad and this was not challenged by the employer. In due course, the respondent retired from service and claimed gratuity. Since the gratuity was not paid, he approached the authorities under Payment of Gratuity Act and consequently, the two impugned orders have been passed in his favour. It is sought to be contended that the Co- operative Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute under Section 91. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Premier Automobiles 2 Ltd., Vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke & Ors. Reported in AIR 1975 SC 2238. In that judgment, the Apex Court was not considering the question of jurisdiction of a Co-operative Court with powers akin to the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court in Maharashtra under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The issue regarding jurisdiction to entertain the dispute is squarely covered by the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar Vs. K.S.S.Karkhana Ltd., reported in 1998(3) Mh.L.J 214. It has been held that if the person concerned is not a workman then a dispute would lie to the Co-operative court. Advocate for the petitioner then placed reliance upon a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Morinda Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Vs. Morinda Coop.Sugar Mills Workers Union reported in 2006 (6) SCC 80, in which the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal holding that the issue pertaining to a claim of dearness allowance of workmen represented by a union could not be said to be touching business of the society. The facts in that case before the Supreme Court were different in so far as the persons concerned were admittedly workmen. In this case also the Supreme Court was not seized of the question about the jurisdiction of the Co-operative court in entertaining the dispute of the nature before us. In the circumstances, not a fit case for interference. Hence, petition stands summarily rejected. 2 Advocate for the petitioner seeks stay of this order. In my view, it is not a fit case for grant of stay as no stay on the payment of gratuity was operating earlier. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3 4