1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL 259 OF 2008 (Devidas Bhimrao Khapare through LRs Smt. Pramila & Ors. vs. Nagpur ZP Primary Teachers Credit Coop. Soc.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JANUARY 19, 2009. Heard Shri Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The appellant – employee challenges reversing appellate Court judgment. He filed Special Civil Suit No. 391 of 1995 for declaration that his termination from employment of the respondent – society was void and claimed reinstatement with back wages. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, on 16.3.2001 and direction was issued to the respondent – society to pay all his service benefits from the date of suspension till his death. The society challenged said adjudication in Regular Civil Appeal No. 293 of 2001 and lower appellate Court vide its judgment dated 25.2.2008 found that because of Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the Civil Court could not have taken cognizance of the same. 2 Various judgments as mentioned in synopsis along with Second Appeal memo are being pressed into service by Shri Prasad, learned counsel to contend that Civil Suit for grant of said relief is maintainable. He contends that the deceased was a permanent employee holding permanent post and the employment with the respondent society is not purely private employment because the society receives financial assistance from the State Government. Shri Patil, learned counsel for the respondent – society states that the employment with the respondent – society is private employment and there is no question of any financial assistance by the State Government. He further points out the judgment relied upon particularly in Ram Sahan Rai vs. Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak, reported at AIR 2001 SC 1173, is in view of the fact that said Bank is a District Cooperative Bank. After perusal of the impugned judgment as also case law cited, it is apparent that the employment with the respondent is purely private employment. The provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, were, therefore, applicable and in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pralhad Vithhalrao Pawar 3 vs. Managing Director, Kannaded Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. & Anr., reported at 1998 (3) Mh. L.J. 214, it is apparent that Civil Court could not have taken cognizance of said dispute. In the circumstances, I do not find any substantial question of law arising in this Second Appeal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Needless to mention that the legal heirs of the deceased appellant are entitled to take recourse to appropriate remedy and forum, if it is still available to them in law. JUDGE *GS.