Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, five retired employees of Respondent No. 4 (Beed Zilla Parishad Doodh Utpadak Sangh Maryadit, a cooperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960), challenged a resolution dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Managing Committee of the society. The resolution amended the service rules to reduce the retirement age from 60 years to 58 years, thereby relieving the petitioners from service with effect from 30.04.2016. The petitioners sought quashing of the resolution and reinstatement with continuity of service and consequential benefits. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the Act. The court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange (2017) 3 Mh.L.J. 365, held that service disputes between a cooperative society and its employees are not covered under Section 91 of the Act, and therefore the Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable. On merits, the court found that the resolution reducing the retirement age was passed without prior approval of the Registrar as required under Section 79A of the Act and the relevant rules. The court held that the society cannot unilaterally amend service rules to the detriment of employees without following the prescribed procedure. The impugned resolution was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with continuity and all consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Cooperative Law - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Service Dispute - Section 91 of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange held that service disputes between a cooperative society and its employees are not covered under Section 91 of the Act, and therefore the Cooperative Court has no jurisdiction. Consequently, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against a cooperative society for service matters. (Paras 5-6) B) Cooperative Law - Retirement Age - Amendment of Service Rules - Section 79A of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 - The resolution passed by the Managing Committee reducing the retirement age from 60 to 58 years without prior approval of the Registrar is illegal and void. The society cannot unilaterally amend service rules to the detriment of employees without following the procedure under the Act and Rules. (Paras 7-8) C) Service Law - Reinstatement - Continuity and Consequential Benefits - The petitioners, who were relieved from service prematurely due to the illegal resolution, are entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The impugned resolution dated 07.04.2016 is quashed and set aside. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition is maintainable against a cooperative society in respect of a service dispute regarding reduction of retirement age, and whether the resolution reducing retirement age from 60 to 58 years is valid.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned resolution dated 07.04.2016 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Writ petition maintainable against cooperative society
- Service dispute not covered under Section 91 of MCS Act
- 1960
- Cooperative Court lacks jurisdiction
- Resolution reducing retirement age from 60 to 58 years without approval from Registrar is illegal
- Employees entitled to reinstatement with continuity and consequential benefits
