Waman Vyenkatesh Ruikar vs Registrar, Co-Operative ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1014 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Topkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sonawane, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1. Respondent No. 2 is absent despite notice. Names of respondents No. 3 to 5 are deleted.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated August 31, 2000 passed by the Industrial Court, Kolhapur setting aside the order of Labour Court and directing the petitioner to seek permission of respondent No. 1 under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co- operative Societies Act before proceeding with the complaint against the termination under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. He has also challenged the order of respondent No. 1 dated January 29, 2002 refusing permission under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

3. It is doubtful whether such a permission would be necessary for prosecuting the proceeding under the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. In any event, it is impossible to sustain the order of respondent No. 1 refusing permission to the petitioner to prosecute the complaint against termination under MRTU and PULP Act. No reasons whatsoever are assigned for refusing the permission. We do not see any ground to reject such permission, which ought to have been granted as a matter of course.

4. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the order of 1st respondent dated January 29, 2002 and direct the 1st respondent to issue the permission to the petitioner under Section 107 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act within four weeks from today.

5. The hearing of the complaint before the Labour Court is expedited. The Labour Court is directed to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four months from the date of producing the permission under Section 107.

6. Parties to act on a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court.