The main legal point established is that the status of an employee under the Co-operative Societies Act can be established based on the nature of service, and even daily wagers are entitled to protection against arbitrary termination without a departmental enquiry.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 13-1-2009 passed by M. P. State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal, whereby orders dated 21-7-2006 and 10-1-2007 passed by Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Vidisha, and Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal, respectively have been set aside.

2. The petitioner by this petition has sought following reliefs :-

1. That, the impugned order dated 13-1-2009 (Ann. P/1) passed by the M. P. State Co-operative Tribunal Bhopal may kindly be cuashed.

2. That, respondent society may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner with full backwages w.e.f. 14-10-2004 till today along with all consequential benefit.

3. That, respondent society may kindly be directed to pay salary to petitioner w.e.f. 21-7-2006 when deputy registrar had ordered to reinstate the petitioner along with 18% interest per annum.

4. Cost and any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit kindly be awarded.

3. In brief the case of petitioner is that he is working in the establishment of respondent/Society on the post of salesman with effect from 1984-1985. On account of certain charges framed against him, he was relieved from his duty vide letter dated 16-10-2004 which was given in pursuance to resolution dated 14-10-2004 passed by the Managing Committee of the respondent/Society in which a decision, to suspend the petitioner after relieving him, was taken and an enquiry was also directed to be ordered. The resolution dated 14-10-2004 is placed on record as Annexure P-2. Vide letter dated 16-10-2004, it was intimated to the petitioner that in pursuance to the resolution dated 14-10-2004 (annexure P-2), he has been relieved from the work of Society.

4. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the letter (annexure P-3) dated 16-10-2004 and resolution (annexure P-2) dated 14-10-2004, submitted a service dispute under section 55(2) of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, on 18-11-2004. Copy of memorandum of dispute has been placed on record as annexure P-4. In the memorandum of dispute, it has been prayed by the petitioner as under:-

5. The respondent/Society submitted written statement (annexure P-5) and refuted the averments made in the dispute. Learned Deputy Registrar after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties, allowed the dispute of the petitioner vide order dated 21-7-2006 (annexure P-6) and directed the respondent/Society to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, learned Deputy Registrar did not pass any order in respect to backwages.

6. Against the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 21-7-2006 (annexure P-6), both the parties preferred separate appeals before the Joint Registrar. The respondent/Society challenged the order of Deputy Registrar on merit directing to reinstate the petitioner, while in his appeal the petitioner challenged that part of the order of Deputy Registrar by which backwages were not directed to be paid. The learned Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, vide order dated 10-1-2007 dismissed both the appeals, against which the Society-respondent preferred second appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal constituted under the Act. The writ petitioner also filed cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code. The learned Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Society by setting aside the orders passed by Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar.

7. In this manner, this petition has been filed by the petitioner.

8. At the outset, Sushri Deeksha Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent/Society, submitted that she does not want to file any return and the petition be heard finally and accordingly we have accepted her prayer and heard the matter finally.

9. The contention of Shri Raghvendra Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that although in p