1. Rule. Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the adjudication of the claim for damages in lieu of reinstatement awarded to the respondent in the dispute filed by the respondent under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”].

3. The respondent was appointed on the post of clerk at the petitioner – Bank which is duly registered under the provisions of the said Act. The respondent was thereafter promoted to the post of Branch Manager. During his course of service, a departmental enquiry was conducted against him on charges of financial misappropriation. After issuing a show cause notice on 27-3-2000 and pursuant to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Bank terminated the services of the respondent on 28-4-2000. The respondent being aggrieved filed a dispute under Section 91 of the said Act before the Cooperative Court seeking a declaration that the resolution resulting in termination of his services was illegal. The relief seeking declaration that the respondent continued in service with benefits of continuity and full back wages was also sought. This dispute was contested by the Bank and the reliefs sought by the respondent were opposed.

4. The Cooperative Court by judgment dated 16-6-2001 dismissed the dispute. The respondent filed an appeal before the Cooperative Appellate Court. This appeal was also dismissed on 3-5-2002. Being aggrieved the respondent filed Writ Petition No.3819/2002 challenging the aforesaid adjudication. This Court by judgment dated 23-7-2013 came to the conclusion that the chargesheet issued to the respondent was without legal authority, as the same was issued by a person who was not competent to do so. On that basis, the order of termination dated 28-4-2000 based on the resolution passed by the Board of Directors dated 23-4-2000 was set aside. This Court further held that the respondent not being a “workman” was not entitled for relief of reinstatement with back wages. It was found that the respondent had superannuated during pendency of the writ petition on 30-4-2013. Liberty was granted to the respondent to seek damages for wrongful termination and in lieu of reinstatement. For that purpose, the dispute filed by the respondent was restored and he was permitted to apply for amendment of the dispute with a further liberty to the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective stands.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent amended the dispute claiming damages in view of reinstatement. According to the respondent, he was getting salary of Rs.13,850/per month when his services were terminated. If the respondent would have retired on reaching the age of superannuation, he would have got salary of Rs.34,660/per month. According to him, the total amount of salary which he would have earned was Rs.52,02,000/. By seeking damages of Rs.10,00,000/on account of mental pain and agony, the respondent claimed a total amount of Rs.62,02,000/as damages. This claim was opposed by the Bank. The respondent examined himself and justified the amount of damages claimed by him. The Cooperative Court held that the respondent was entitled to receive damages equivalent to the salary which he would have got if his services had not been terminated. By the order dated 11-8-2014, the respondent was held entitled to an amount of Rs.36,75,153/with interest at 12% per annum. This amount was determined on the basis of his monthly salary of Rs.34,660/.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid award approached the Cooperative Appellate Court. By judgment dated 30-9-2015, the Cooperative Appellate dismissed the appeal preferred by the Bank and confirmed the award passed by the Cooperative Court. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

6. Shri A. M. Ghare, the learned Counsel for the Bank stated that both the Courts misdirected themselves by gr