Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, The Maharashtra State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., filed four writ petitions challenging identical judgments of the Cooperative Court, Nanded dated 07.05.1990 and the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 15.10.1993. The respondents were employees of the bank who were terminated from service. The Cooperative Court had ordered their reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages, which was upheld by the Appellate Tribunal. The bank argued that the Cooperative Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain service disputes and that the termination was justified due to misconduct. The employees contended that the termination was without proper inquiry and violated principles of natural justice. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to entertain disputes touching the business of the society, including service matters. The court further held that the bank failed to prove misconduct and that the termination was arbitrary. The court dismissed all the writ petitions, upholding the orders of reinstatement with back wages. The court also disposed of the civil applications.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Jurisdiction of Cooperative Court - Service Disputes - Sections 91, 96, 97 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The Cooperative Court has jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to service matters of employees of cooperative societies, as the dispute touches the business of the society. The court held that the dispute regarding termination of service is a dispute touching the business of the society and is maintainable under Section 91 of the Act. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Reinstatement and Back Wages - Misconduct - Natural Justice - The employer failed to prove misconduct and violated principles of natural justice by not conducting a proper inquiry. The Cooperative Court and Appellate Tribunal rightly ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The court held that the bank's action was arbitrary and the employees were entitled to reinstatement. (Paras 11-20)
C) Cooperative Law - Appellate Tribunal's Powers - Section 97 Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The Cooperative Appellate Tribunal has the power to confirm, modify, or set aside the order of the Cooperative Court. The court held that the Appellate Tribunal's order was within its jurisdiction and did not warrant interference. (Paras 21-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Cooperative Court and Cooperative Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain service disputes and whether the orders of reinstatement with back wages were justified.
Final Decision
All writ petitions are dismissed. The orders of the Cooperative Court and Cooperative Appellate Tribunal are upheld. Civil applications are disposed of.
Law Points
- Cooperative Court jurisdiction
- service disputes
- reinstatement
- back wages
- natural justice
- misconduct proof
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 2
Writ Petition No. 2381 of 1994 with Writ Petition No. 2390 of 1994, Writ Petition No. 2391 of 1994, Writ Petition No. 2523 of 1994
Mr. A.S. Shelke holding for Mr. S.K. Shelke for petitioner; Mr. S.S. Chaudhari with Mr. A.A. Shelke holding for Mr. D.N. Suryawanshi for respondent
The Maharashtra State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.
Gangaram Jairam Jamdar (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. i) Gangabai Gangaram Jamdar, ii) Sanjay Gangaram Jamdar, iii) Padmakar Gangaram Jamdar; Laxman Mahadeo Shinde; Kishansingh Khemsingh; Shriram Shankarrao Pimpalgaonkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging orders of Cooperative Court and Cooperative Appellate Tribunal in service disputes.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner bank sought to quash the orders of reinstatement with back wages passed by the Cooperative Court and upheld by the Appellate Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The bank was aggrieved by the orders directing reinstatement of employees who were terminated.
Previous Decisions
Cooperative Court, Nanded ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages on 07.05.1990; Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai upheld the order on 15.10.1993.
Issues
Whether the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction to entertain service disputes under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960?
Whether the termination of the employees was justified and whether the orders of reinstatement with back wages were proper?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Cooperative Court lacked jurisdiction as service disputes are not covered under Section 91 of the Act.
Petitioner argued that the termination was for misconduct and the employees were not entitled to reinstatement.
Respondents argued that the termination was without proper inquiry and violated natural justice.
Respondents argued that the Cooperative Court had jurisdiction as the dispute touches the business of the society.
Ratio Decidendi
The Cooperative Court has jurisdiction under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 to entertain disputes relating to service matters of employees of cooperative societies, as such disputes touch the business of the society. The employer failed to prove misconduct and violated principles of natural justice, hence reinstatement with back wages is justified.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the nature of the dispute and taking into account that the respondentemployees had given an undertaking before the Cooperative Court, interim relief was not granted in these matters.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the identical judgment delivered by the Cooperative Court, Nanded dated 07.05.1990 and the judgment delivered by the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai dated 15.10.1993.
Procedural History
The employees were terminated by the bank. They filed disputes before the Cooperative Court, Nanded, which ordered reinstatement with back wages on 07.05.1990. The bank appealed to the Cooperative Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, which upheld the order on 15.10.1993. The bank then filed writ petitions before the High Court, which were admitted but interim relief was not granted. The High Court heard all petitions together and dismissed them on 11.03.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: 91, 96, 97
