JUDGMENT :_ The petitioners before this Court are employees of respondent No. 1 Co-operative Society. Respondent No. 1 is duly registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Respondent No. 2 is the Industrial Court functioning under provisions of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 hereinafter referred to as MRTU Act. before which the petitioners filed a U.L.P. Complaint and the same has been held to be not maintainable in view of section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. hereinafter referred to as MCS Act. The said judgment and order of respondent No.2 Industrial Court is questioned in present writ petition.

2. All petitioners state that they are working as Salesmen in the shop of respondent No.1 and get the total salary of Rs. 1060/- only per month. On 19-11993, respondent No. 1 Society passed Resolution No.7 and decided to recover amount from salary of petitioners on the ground of alleged shortage as mentioned in audit note for the year 1983-84. Accordingly it issued an order dated 29-41993 proposing recovery from June. 1993. Total recovery proposed from salary of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 was Rs. 1608/- while from petitioners No.4 to 6 it was Rs. 5297/- only. The petitioners therefore filed UL.P. Complaint No. 508/1993 under section 28 read with Item 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of MRTU Act and challenged said recovery on various grounds along with the ground that it was also in breach of principles of natural justice. They also moved application under section 30(2) of the MRTU Act for grant of interim relief. Industrial Court stayed said recovery. Respondent No.1 employer (society) then appeared and raised preliminary objection before Industrial Court about jurisdiction. They contended that in view of specific remedy under section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, Complaint as filed before Industrial Court was not maintainable. Said objection was upheld by Industrial Court vide its order dated 18-1-1994 and it directed present petitioners to file dispute before appropriate forum. This Court has issued Rule on 25-10-1994 but refused to grant any stay of recovery.

3. I have heard Advocate Shri Kadu for petitioners and Advocate Shri Gordey for respondent No.1 Society.

4. By inviting attention to section 91 of MCS Act. Advocate Kadu has contended that the grievance made by petitioners before Industrial Court was/is an industrial dispute as defined in section 2(k) of Industrial Disputes Act and from scheme of section 91 it is apparent that such dispute is excepted from jurisdiction of Co-operative Court. It is argued that no recovery from salary of an employee can be made on the basis of alleged losses which are reflected only in audit note without giving concerned employee an opportunity to show cause and without conducting departmental inquiry. The recovery proposed is in breach of service conditions and amounts to punishment. He argues that audit note cannot be used against petitioners because it is not prepared after giving them reasonable opportunity and is prepared behind their back. It is argued that dispute under section 2(k) is triable only before Industrial Court and the respondent No. 2 Industrial Court has refused to exercise jurisdiction available to it in the matter. He has stated that he could not get any judgment of this High Court except Full Bench judgment in 1966 Mh.L.J. 1, Rambhau vs. President. Vinkar Co-operative Society and requested to rely upon judgments reported at 1964 CTD 217. Maroti Yeshwant Kumbhare vs. President, Gurudeo Weavers and 1967 CTD 314, P. R. Mhaskar vs. District Deputy Registrar. Both these judgments are of Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribunals Bombay and deal with admissibility of audit note. I have permitted him to point out the reasoning and application of mind therein.

5. Advocate Gordey on the other hand has contended that as the Society has claimed to recover amount of los

Click Here to Read the rest of this document