1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2153 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4328 OF 2002 The Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited (New name) Dr. Baburao Bapuji Tanpure Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited Shivajinagar, Taluka Rahuri District Ahmednagar ...Petitioner Versus Baburao Wamanrao Dhonde age major, Occ. Ex-Distillery Manager, Residing at Bungalow No.2, Taluka Rahuri District Ahmednagar ...Respondent ..... Mr. D.N. Patil (Bankar), advocate for the petitioner None for the respondent, though served. ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 27TH AUGUST, 2009 PER COURT:- 1 This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20.3.2002 passed by the Member, Maharashtra State Co- operative Appellate Court, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad in Appeal No. 152 of 2008. The petitioner has terminated the services of the respondent on 2 24.4.1987. The respondent herein challenged his termination before the Co-operative Court. The respondent was again reinstated by the petitioner as Distillery in charge on 7.7.1989. On 4.8.1993, the respondent made a representation to the managing committee of the petitioner Karkhana requesting for salary for the period from 24.4.1987 to 7.7.1989. Since the petitioner did not accept the request of the respondent and declined to pay salary, respondent herein filed Dispute ABN Case No. 344 of 1995 before the Co-operative Court at Shrirampur against the petitioner. The respondent prayed in the dispute for the salary from 24.4.1987 to 7.7.1989 with other consequential benefits amounting to Rs. 2,02,444.55 Ps. with further interest @ 18% p.a. The petitioner appeared in the said dispute before the Co-operative Court, filed written statement and prayed for dismissal of dispute. 2 The Judge, Co-operative Court framed necessary issues for adjudication. Issue No.1 was framed in respect of jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court to entertain the dispute praying for back wages and he should be treated in continuous service of the petitioner Karkhana. 3 The learned Judge, Co-operative Court after appreciating the contentions raised by the parties, answered the issue No.1 in negative and held that the disputant is not entitled for back wages as the 3 dispute does not fall within four corners of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the Co-operative Court do not have jurisdiction to grant relief as prayed for by the disputant. In para 5, learned Judge, Co-operative Court has taken a note of the arguments advanced on behalf of the disputant that relief of declaration and the dispute should be adjudicated only for the back wages. 4 Respondent being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Co-operative Court filed appeal before the Member, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad. The appellate court in para 9 referring to reported judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 1970 SC 245 came to the conclusion that the Co- operative Court has entertained the prayers of the disputant and therefore, set aside the order passed by the Co-operative Court and remanded the matter back to the Co-operative Court for fresh consideration on other issues. This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of the Co-operative Appellate Court. 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the point which is raised in this petition is no more res-integra and covered by the two pronouncements of this Court in the case of Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd. And others Vs. V.S. Loni and another, reported in 1984 Mh.L.J. 297 and in the case of 4 Pralhad Vithalrao Pawar Vs. Managing Director, Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and another reported in 1998 (3) Mh. L. J. 214. On the basis of the aforesaid pronouncements, the learned counsel would submit that the Co-operative court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute for back wages or reinstatement. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the relevant paragraphs of the said judgments and submitted that this petition deserves to be allowed on this ground alone. Though respondent is duly served, none appears for the respondent. 6 After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the judgment passed by the Co-operative Court and the other judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that the points raised in this petition that the Co- operative Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayer for reinstatement or back wages is no more res-integra. 7 This court in the case of Pralhad Pawar (supra) in para 18 (c) has summed up the findings as under:- “c. It could be inappropriate for a Co-operative court to grant the relief of reinstatement with back wages where the petitioners do not fall in any of the three exceptional cases as laid down by the Supreme court int he case of Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (supra). In 5 addition, petitioners’ service conditions are not governed by any Statute which empowers a Tribunal/Court to grant the relief of reinstatement.” 8 Mere perusal of the findings recorded in clause C makes it clear that the Co-operative court by not granting relief of reinstatement or back wages where the petitioner do not call any of the explanation laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Co- operative Housing Finance Society Ltd. And others (Supra). In the said, this Court in para 27 has held as under:- “27. We may now summaries our findings briefly as follows:- (1) A claim which is not entertainable by a Civil Court under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot also be entertained by a Registrar or other authority under Section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Such a claim will include a claim by an employee for reinstatement in the service of his previous employee and/or a claim by an employee for alteration of the conditions of service. Such a claim could only be entertained and decided by the adjudication authorities under the relevant Industrial Law. (2) Any dispute, therefore, involving such a claim is not one touching the management or the business of a society. (3) A question such as the payment of wages on account of the termination of the services by a Co-operative 6 Society will also not be the subject matter of a dispute touching the “business” of a Co-operative Society (See paragraph 32 read with paragraph 14(ii) of the judgment of the Supreme court in Gujarat State Co-operative bank’s case). (4) However, a claim based upon contracts between the employees of a Co-operative Society and the society or claims for damages arising out of breach of such contracts can be part of a dispute touching the “management” of a Co- operative Society within the meaning of Section 91 of the Co- operative Societies Act. Hence, such a claim can be entertained and decided by the machinery provided under the Act.” 9 It is not necessary to go into the details of the matter. On the basis of the aforesaid pronouncement, suffice it to say that in the instant case, also the Co-operative Court or the Co-operative Appellate Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayers of the respondent in dispute. Therefore, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clause "A". Rule made absolute in the above terms. 10. In view of disposal of writ petition, civil application No.4328 of 2002 does not survive and the same is disposed of. (S.S. SHINDE, J.) rlj/ 7