Bombay High Court
Mhaske Raosaheb Dadarao And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 27 June, 2017
Bench: Anoop V. Mohta
10_WP581616.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5816 OF 2016
1. Mhaske Raosaheb Dadarao
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Retd. Employee,
R/o Palwan, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
2. Babasaheb Govind Rasal
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Retd. Employee,
R/o Majarsumbha, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
3. Naikwade Dnyanoba Sopanrao
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Retired Employee,
R/o Sakhare Borgaon, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
4. Chandrakant Ramrao Shinde
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Rtd. Employee,
R/o Belapur, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
5. Anil Bhagwan Shinde
Age: 58 years, Occu.: Retd. Employee,
R/o Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ..PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through: Secretary,
Milk and Fisheries Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2. The Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies (Milk),
Administrative Building, Worli Sea Face,
Mumbai.
3. Divisional Joint Registrar,
Co-operative Societies (Milk),
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
1 / 5
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:10:23 :::
10_WP581616.odt
4. Beed Zilla Parishad Doodh Utpadak
Sangh Maryadit, Beed,
Barshi Road, Beed.
Through : Its Managing Director/Manager
5. Tanaji Ambadas Kadam,
Chairman,
Beed Zilla Parishad Doodh Utpadak
Sangh Maryadit, Beed,
Barshi Road, Beed. ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. C.V. Thombre, Advocate for petitioners.
Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. K.J. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.4.
....
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ
DATED : 27th JUNE, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent
of the parties.
2. Petitioners have challenged the resolution dated 07 th April, 2016
passed by the Managing Committee of Respondent No.4, thereby relieving
petitioners from service with effect from 30 th April, 2016 by amending service
rules declaring the age of retirement of sixty years to fifty-eight years. Prayer is
also made to set aside the said order and to reinsist petitioners in service with
continuity of service and consequential benefits.
2 / 5
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:10:23 :::
10_WP581616.odt
3. Respondent No.4 - society is registered under the provisions of
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (the "Act") having its operation in
Beed district. This society has adopted the Employer Service Rules approved by
the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Power is with
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to approve the by-laws of the society. Petitioners
therefore admittedly governed by the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act (the "Act"), Rules and By-laws made thereunder.
4. A preliminary objection is raised by learned Counsel appearing for
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 about the maintainability of this writ petition.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as (2017) 3
Mh.L.J. 365 /MANU/SC/0343/2017 ( The Maharashtra State Co-operative
Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange ) while
dealing with the provisions of the Act, has specifically observed with regard to
the issue of services of employees of the co-operative societies. Such service
dispute between the societies and its employees is not covered by the "disputes"
so contemplated under Section 91 of the Act. It is observed that service
disputes raised by respondent is not covered within the meaning of Section 91
of the Act and therefore, Co-operative Court does not have jurisdiction to
3 / 5
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:10:23 :::
10_WP581616.odt
entertain the claim filed by respondent against the "management"/ "society". It
is ultimately observed as under:
"18. As a result, this appeal is allowed, the order of the High
Court is set aside and the Division Bench judgment, on which
reliance is placed by the High Court in the impugned judgment, is
ouverruled. As a consequence, it is held that the petition filed by
the Respondent before the Cooperative Court is not maintainable.
It would, however, be open to the Respondent to file a civil suit.
Needles to mention, in such a civil suit filed by the Respondent, he
would be at liberty to file application Under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 in order to save the limitation. No costs."
4. After considering the rival contentions, in view of the decision of
Supreme Court and as an alternate remedy is available to the petitioner to
redress the grievance so raised in the present petition, we are not inclined to
entertain present petition. However, liberty is granted to petitioners to
approach the forum in accordance with law.
5. Considering the fact and on the basis of preliminary objections, we
are disposing of the present petition. Petitioners would be at liberty to file
application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, in order to save
limitation, if any. The concerned officer to consider above background while
deciding such application as we have not discussed and/or touched the merits
4 / 5
::: Uploaded on - 03/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 04/07/2017 00:10:23 :::
10_WP581616.odt
of the matter, so raised in the present petition.
O R D E R
(i) Petition is disposed of with liberty. No costs.
(ii) Rule is disposed of accordingly.
( SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J. ) ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. )
SSD
5 / 5
