Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Khanwilkar A.M., J.
Maharashtra State Co-op. Agricultural
Rural Development Bank Ltd. another .... Petitioners.
Versus
Vasant Mahadeo Gire.... Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 452 of 2004, decided on 17-8-2004.
Advocates appeared :
P.S. Dani, for petitioners.
C.J. Sawant, Sr.C. with Ms. Lalita Panchakshari, for respondent.
Held, that a claim which is entertainable by a Civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure can also be entertained by a Registrar or other authority under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The relief as claimed by the respondent/disputant is not a relief of reinstatement, as such, but a declaration sought that the order of transfer is nullity and non-existing and not binding on the respondent/disputant. If that declaration is to be granted, it necessarily follows that in law, the respondent will have to be treated to have continued in service and there is no question of issuing direction for reinstatement of the respondent/disputant. In that assumption, the respondent/ disputant will also be entitled to claim for the emoluments, which he would have drawn as per the service contract. That is the relief which has been sought in terms of prayer clause (b). Whether the respondent/disputant would be entitled for that relief in its entirety or partially, is a matter which can be decided only at the end of the trial. Suffice it to observe that the relief which is claimed by the respondent/ disputant, is ascribable to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and such a relief could be granted in dispute under Section 91 of the Act. The conclusion reached by the appellate authority that the dispute as filed by the respondent was amenable to Section 91 of the Act, is correct. AIR 1979 SC 1203, 1984 Mh LJ 297 : AIR 1984 Bom 419 and 1998 (3) Mh LJ 214 - Relied.
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Section 91 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 9 - Co-operative Bank - Transfer of employee - Dispute by employee - Seeking declaration that order transferring employee illegal, vexatious and without jurisdiction - Not binding in employee-respondent - Relief claimed is ascribable to Section 9 of Code - Can be granted under Section 91 of Act. - It is not in dispute that transfer is one of the incidence of service of the respondent, but the plaint proceeds on the assertion that the transfer as ordered in the present case, is without jurisdiction and non-existing in the eyes of law. Such a plea can obviously be considered by the Civil Court and it is open to the Civil Court to grant such declaration by virtue of the expansive provisions contained in Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Going by the nature of dispute and the reliefs claimed which is reproduced above in para 4 [see clause (1)], in essence this is the declaration sought by the respondent. It prays that the impugned order transferring the respondent from Assistant District Manager to Statistical Officer, is illegal, vexatious and without jurisdiction and not binding on the respondent. If this claim succeeds it necessarily follows that the action taken against the respondent/disputant is not in terms of the contract and it is open to the Civil Court to remedy such mischief.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Ms. Panchakshari waives notice for respondent.
3. As short question is involved, the matter is heard for final disposal forthwith, by consent.
4. The respondent filed dispute before the Co-operative Court No. 1, Pune at Pune being Dispute No. 74 of 1996 on the assertion that he was an employee as Grade VI Officer in the petitioner bank. In substance, the respondent questioned the order passed by the District Branch Manager dated 16th/18th September, 1995, whereby his (respondent No. 1's) services were transferred from the post of Assistant District Branch Manager to the post of the Statistical Officer, on the ground that the said order was issued without authority, as no prior sanction of the Chairman District Loan Sanctioning Committee, Pune was obtained before issuance of that order, which was mandatory. Besides, it is asserted that the said order is the outcome of ill-will and mala fide action against the respondent by the opponent No. 3 Gokul Dagdoba Malusare. In other words, it was contended that the impugned decision of transfer passed against the respondent was mala fide action, for which reason also, the same will have to be treated as null and void and not binding on the respondent. It is asserted in the dispute that although the respondent reported on duty on his original post, he was not allowed to resume the duty since September, 1995. It is on that basis, the respondent prayed for following reliefs in the dispute as filed by him :
(a) It be declared that the order dt. 16/18-9-1995 issued by District Branch Manager transferring the Disputant from Assistant District Manager to Statistical Officer is illegal, vexatious and without jurisdiction and not binding on the disputant;
(b) An award be passed against the opponents for Rs. 63,192/-.
(c) Interest at the rate of 18% p.a. be awarded to the Disputant from the opponents on the amounts of Rs. 63,192/- from the date of filing of the dispute till its realisation.
(d) The opponents through its agents, employees and other officials be restrained by permanent injunction from prohibiting the disputant from attending his duties as Assistant District Branch Manager at Pune.
(e) A temporary injunction be issued that till the disposal of the present dispute, the opponents be directed not to transfer the disputant from the post of Assistant District Branch Manager;
(f) The costs for the present dispute be awarded from the opponents;
(g) Other just and equitable orders may be passed in the interest of justice."
5. The petitioners raised preliminary objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court. According to the petitioners, the dispute as filed by the respondent, was neither touching the business nor touching the management of the society and for which reason, it was outside the scope of dispute provided for under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Co-operative Court accepted the said submission canvassed on behalf of the petitioner mainly relying on the Division Bench decision of our High Court reported in 1984(2) Bom.C.R. 324 in the case of (Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd., Bombay others v. V.S. Loni another)1, and decision of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1203 in the case of (The Gujarat State Co-operatives Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad another)2. Against that decision, respondent carried the matter before the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Bench at Pune. The proceedings were initially instituted as appeal, but have been treated as revision application and the Appellate Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated July 22, 2003, was pleased to reverse the view taken by the Co-operative Court and instead held that the nature of dispute instituted by the respondent was touching the management of the so
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
