1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. In the first Writ Petition No.8885/2016, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment of the Industrial Court dated 27.04.2015 by which Complaint (ULP) Nos.43/2010, 33/2011, 48/2011, 50/2011, 77/2011, 79/2011 and 81/2011 filed by the respective Petitioners have been dismissed for two reasons. Firstly that, the permission of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies was not obtained to lodge the complaints considering the bar of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and secondly, the claim of the Petitioners for unpaid dues is delayed and the complaints are not maintainable.

3. In the second Writ Petition No.8886/2016, the Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.04.2015 by which the Industrial Court has dismissed Complaint (ULP) Nos.37/2010, 39/2010, 47/2010, 55/2011 and 57/2011 filed by the respective Petitioners on the ground that the claim for dearness allowances was a stale claim and the complaints were untenable, notwithstanding that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has accorded permission.

4. I have considered the submissions of Shri Patil, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Shri Hon, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondents. Considering the fact that all the Petitioners are identically placed and the employees of the same Respondent Establishment, these petitions are heard together by consent of the parties.

5. Shri Hon has strenuously submitted that the bar of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 prevents any civil litigation or any other litigation against an entity which has already gone into liquidation. Unless the Registrar of Cooperative Societies does not accord his permission, no litigant can file a complaint or suit or initiate any litigation against any entity which is in liquidation.

6. Shri Hon has relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the matter of Sadashiv K. Sutar vs. Kolhapur Zilla Janata Sahakari Bank Limited, 2004(2) BCR 111 : 2004(2) All M.R. 115, to support his contention that once the bar of Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 is attracted, the complaints under the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 would be untenable in law. He has further stated that as the stale disputes have been raised, the complaints were barred by limitation and as such, the Industrial Court has rightly dismissed both the groups of complaints.

7. Shri Patil submits that the order of appointing the Liquidator is dated 06.01.2009. The complaints were lodged in December, 2010. The Petitioners were in service till 14.05.2011 when they were terminated. As such, notwithstanding the appointment of the Liquidator, the business activities of the Respondent Bank continued and it was after about two years and four months that they were terminated. He further submits that it was under the orders of this Court that the retrenchment compensation of these Petitioners was paid by the Respondent.

8. Section 107 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 reads thus:"

107. Bar of suit in winding up and dissolution matters.

Save as expressly provided in this Act, no Civil Court shall take cognizance of any matter connected with the winding up or dissolution of a society under this Act; and when a winding up order has been made no suit or other legal proceedings shall lie or be proceeded with against the society or the liquidator, except by leave of the Registrar, and subject to such terms as he may impose:

Provided that, where the winding up order is cancelled, the provisions of this section shall cease to operate so far as the liability of the society and of the members thereof to be sued is concerned, but they shall continue to apply to the person who acted as Liquidator."

9. It is trite law that the claims as regards unpaid wages or any component of wages or any such amounts which the employer was under a legal obliga