IMPORTANT POINT
Disputes between cooperative societies and their employees are not maintainable under Section 91 of the MCS Act, requiring civil suits for resolution.

JUDGMENT :

(Gauri Godse, J.) :

BASIC FACTS:

1. This petition challenges the dismissal of the appeal arising from the Judgment and Award passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court in a dispute filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had filed a dispute under Section 91 of The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (“MCS Act”) to challenge the petitioner’s termination. The petitioner had prayed for reinstatement and compensation in lieu of illegal termination. The dispute was dismissed. Hence, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Co-operative Appellate Court. The appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

2. This Court issued notice to the respondent; however, after service of notice when the petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, pointed out that the present dispute would be covered by the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Co- operative Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) 5 SCC 623. He submitted that the Apex Court dealt with the issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act for deciding service disputes between the Co-operative Society established under the MCS Act and its employees. The Apex Court held that such a dispute between the Co-operative Society and its employees is not covered under Section 91 of the MCS Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further pointed out that in the case of Suvarnayug Sahakari Bank Limited Vs Suresh Shivajirao Kale and Others, Writ Petition No. 12845 of 2016 dated 6th October 2023, this Court has followed the legal principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the said decision, this Court set aside the judgment and order passed by the Co-operative Court in a similar dispute between the Co-operative Society and its employees; however, granted liberty to the employee to file a civil suit challenging orders which were the subject matter of the dispute before the Cooperative Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that, in view of the settled legal principles, since the Cooperative Court would not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute involved in the present case, the petitioner’s dispute should be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 (“CPC”) for filing before the Civil Court.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent society submitted that the present petition is covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Limited, followed by this Court in the case of Suvarnayug Sahakari Bank Limited. He submitted that the provisions of Order VII Rule 10 would not apply to the Co-operative Court; hence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot pass an order of returning the dispute by exercising powers under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC. He, therefore, submitted that the petition be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings as permissible in law.

6. In view of the respective contentions of the parties, I heard the parties on the point as to whether this Court can exercise the powers under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC and return the dispute filed by the petitioner in the Cooperative Court under Section 91 of the MCS Act for presenting it before the Civil Court.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

7. In support of the submissions on the point above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the legal principles settled by this Court in the Case of A-1 Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. R. Jaikisan and others, (2005) 1 Mah LJ 118 the provisions under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of CPC would apply to the disputes filed under Section 91 of the MCS Act.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by relying upon the decision in the case of A-1 Co-operative Housing Society Limited, submitted that except for t