( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2012 OF 2002 Dhule District Supervision Co-operative Society, IInd Floor, Dhule District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd., Dhule through its Chief Executive Officer, Dhule. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Nilkant Yadav Borse, R/o Ganpati Mandir, Sindkheda, Tal. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule. 2. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Pawar, advocate holding for Mr. S.P. Brahme, advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. D.V. Tele, AGP for respondent No. 2/State. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 24th June, 2009] ORAL JUDGEMENT : ( 2 ) 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgement and order passed by the learned Judge of Labour Court, Dhule, in Reference Application – IDA No. 63/1999 on 11-03-2002 whereby and whereunder claim of the respondent No. 1 was partly allowed and he was directed to be paid arrears of subsistence allowance of Rs. 36,466/-. 2. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent No. 1 was employed as Secretary at various village level co-operative societies. There is also no dispute about the fact that while the respondent No. 1 was working as Secretary of the co-operative society at Sindkheda, he came to be suspended due to alleged misappropriation committed by him. He was subjected to departmental inquiry. It appears that criminal cases were also instituted against him. He was reinstated in service on 22nd June, 1980 by revoking the suspension. He again was found to have indulged in certain ( 3 ) misappropriation. On 20th January, 1992, he was again suspended from service. A show-cause notice was issued to him and departmental inquiry was instituted against him. His services were terminated on 6th April, 1993. The Managing Committee, however, resolved on 26th May, 1994 that his earlier absence from the duty would be treated as leave without salary and further that the reinstatement would be subject to his acquittal by the criminal Court. The respondent No. 1 retired on 30th June, 1998 on account of superannuation. He claimed gratuity amount from the petitioner. There was dispute as regards his right to claim the gratuity in view of the conditional order of reinstatement. The concerned Assistant Commissioner of Labour and controlling authority held that the respondent No. 1 was entitled to receive the amount of gratuity. The amount was so determined and notice thereof was given to the respondent No. 1 as well as to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing an appeal which came to be dismissed. ( 4 ) 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned AGP. 4. The subsequent development is worthy of consideration. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent No. 1 was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges. Needless to say, his reinstatement became final in view of such acquittal. It is important to note that on second occasion, his services were terminated because he was arrested in connection with the criminal case. The reinstatement was effected as per resolution No. 3. The respondent No. 1 was served with order of reinstatement dated 26th May, 1994. Needless to say, the respondent No. 1 was in regular service of the petitioner till the superannuation. Once it is noticed that he was reinstated by the petitioner, it goes without saying that his service was regularized. 5. Mr. Suryawanshi would submit that respondent ( 5 ) No. 1 was employee of the Co-operative Society and, therefore, the claim could be agitated only before the Co-operative Court. He would submit that the learned Judge of the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. He invited my attention to certain observations in “District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. And others v. Heminath Balbhim Shinde” 2003 (4) ALL MR 537. 6. In “District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. And others” (supra), it has been laid down that initiation of false prosecution or vexatious departmental enquiry, can never be an act touching the business of the society. The question as to whether the dismissal of the respondent No. 1 from service by order dated 06-04-1993 was legal and proper or that it was actuated by malafides could not be decided by the Co-operative Court in view of the fact that such an issue is not an act touching the business of the Co-operative Society. The further development reveals that the earlier order ( 6 ) of dismissal does not exist because the respondent No. 1 was reinstated. His reinstatement became final after the acquittal from the criminal charge. The petitioner – Cooperative Society reinstated the respondent No. 1 by order dated 26th May, 1994 and he was in regular service of the petitioner untill superannuation. Thus, once it is noticed that he was reinstated by the petitioner, it goes without saying that his service was regularised. The reinstatement order does not show that the claim for subsistence allowance was refused or any condition was put forth for the purpose of allowing the respondent No. 1 to join the duty. The benefit available to him to claim arrears of the subsistence allowance for the period during which he was kept under suspension, was not specifically refused when he was reinstated. It may be noticed that after his reinstatement in accordance with resolution NO. 3, the past misconduct was given a go-bye in all respects. 7. For the reasons aforestated, I am of the ( 7 ) opinion that there is no merit in the instant writ petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/WP2012-02