A dispute involving a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal by an employee against a Co-operative Society is a dispute touching the management of the society and falls within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---The first petitioner is the Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society having its registered office in Bombay and business in other parts of Maharashtra. The Second and third petitioners are the office-bearers of the first petitioner. For the purpose of the disposal of this petition we will refer only to the first petitioner as the petitioner and it will hereinafter be referred to also as "the petitioner-Society."

2. The first respondent, hereinafter referred to as "the respondent", was employed by the petitioner-Society sometime in the year 1976. He became the manager of a branch of the petitioner-Society at Aurangabad. When he was holding this office his services were terminated by an order dated 4th February, 1981. The respondent made an attempt to get reinstated by approaching the Commissioner for Co-operation and there were pursuant to that approach certain proceedings between the parties to which no reference need be made here. Ultimately the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by his order dated 8th April, 1982 held that the dispute relating to the dismissal of the respondent from the service of the petitioner-Society was a dispute within the meaning of section 91(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, hereinafter referred to as "the Co-operative Societies Act", and directed that it should be referred to the Co-operative Court No. 1, Bombay, for disposal according to law.

3. Accordingly, the dispute was referred to the Co-operative Court. Originally the plaint presented to the Court by the respondent prayed for a declaration that the order dated 4th February, 1981 be declared null and void ab initio and, therefore, ineffective and illegal. The effect of granting this prayer would undoubtedly have been the reinstatement of the respondent in the service of the petitioner-Society. Realising the insurmountable difficulties in the way of granting a relief of this type the respondent amended the plaint extensively and in particular made amendment in the prayer clause. The prayer clause based upon the dismissal order being void was retained but in the alternative it was prayed on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner. Society should be ordered to pay to the respondent damages equivalent to the emoluments which he actually drew at the time when the notice of termination was served upon him. It was further prayed that damages at that rate shall be made payable to the respondent until he secures an alternative job carrying not less than the emoluments which he was earning with the petitioner-Society. In other words, it was the case of the respondent that if the prayer for reinstatement could not be granted, he should be awarded damages calculated in the manner in which it has been mentioned in the prayer-clause. Thus the suit before the Co-operative Court is not a suit for mere reinstatement of the respondent in the petitioner-Society; the suit includes a prayer for the award of damages on the averments which have been made in the body of the plaint alleging that the order of dismissal was illegal and wrongful.

4. At this stage we may briefly refer to the broad averments in the plaint which has been presented to the Co-operative Court because in the course of his arguments Mr. Rane appearing for the petitioner-Society, often referred to the same in support of his arguments. The respondent was given the history of his service with the petitioner-Society. Thereafter he has made mention of certain circumstances which according to him indicated that the petitioner-Society has taken action of dismissing him from the service of the petitioner-Society mala fide with the intention of victimising him on account of malice borne by the petitioner-Society towards him. The respondent has also mentioned that the order and the resolution forming the basis of the termination of his services were without the prior approval of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and, therefore, the said

Click Here to Read the rest of this document