ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereas it should have been under Article 227 of the Constitution of India because order of a Subordinate Tribunal is being assailed before this High Court.

Petitioner is aggrieved of judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by the learned Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal in First Appeal No.69/2010.

Petitioner's contention is that petitioner, who was working as Manager in the District Central Cooperative Bank, Maryadit, Maihar, his services were terminated after placing him under suspension vide order dated 21.06.1995. Enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the enquiry order of termination was passed on 20.10.2000. Thereafter, petitioner had filed a dispute between the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The dispute was decided by the Deputy Registrar, Rewa and claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with back wages was allowed.

Against this order of Deputy Registrar dated 17.01.2002, District Central Cooperative Bank, Maryadit had preferred an appeal to the Joint Registrar. Joint Registrar too refused to show any indulgence in the orders passed by the learned Deputy Registrar. Thereafter, matter was taken to the Tribunal which vide order dated 31.01.2005 on the basis of notification dated 26.07.1999 held that Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies was not entitled to hear the dispute and, therefore, remitted the matter to the Joint Registrar to hear and decide the controversy.

It is submitted that Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies vide order dated 28.02.2009 ordered for reinstatement of the petitioner but refused to grant him back wages. This order of the Joint Registrar dated 28.02.2009 was assailed before the Cooperative Tribunal on 28.06.2010 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

Vide impugned order dated 30.06.2014, learned Cooperative Tribunal has rejected the plea of the petitioner that he is entitled for back wages for the period he was stopped from performing his work on account of illegal removal.

Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 324 . Reading para 22 of the said judgment, it is submitted that denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the employee concerned and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages.

Reading para 38.1 and 38.2, it is submitted that in cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Tapash Kumar Paul Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Another, (2014) 15 SCC 313 , wherein it is held that employee is entitled to be reinstatement with full back wages since in absence of full back wages, employee would be distressed and suffer punishment for no fault of his own in absence of proof of gainful employment.

Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwala Vs. Central Manager-II and Appointing Authority, State Bank of India and Others, (2015) 15 SCC 184 .

Shri Quazi Fakhruddin, learned counsel for respondent No.1, in his turn, places reliance on a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Vs. Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya, 2022 Live Law (SC) 405 wherein in para 32 it is held that "Even in we apply the propositions enunciated by this Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) , the Officer-employee may not be entitled to full back wages. This is for the reason that there is nothing on record to show whether he was gainfully employee after his dismissal from service."

At this stage Shri Prateek Kumar Dubey submits that