Bombay High Court
The Municipal Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs Shri. P. M. Khair on 10 February, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:7120
60-WP-9508-11+Final.doc
Sayali
SAYALI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DEEPAK
UPASANI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK
UPASANI WRIT PETITION NO.9508 OF 2011
Date: 2026.02.11
18:14:59 +0530 WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2352 OF 2011
The Municipal Co-operative Bank Ltd ... Petitioner
V/s.
P. M. Khair ... Respondent
Mr. Prashant Naik i/b Sandeep Waghmare in
WP/9508-2011, for Petitioner and for Respondent in
WP/2352/2011.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 10, 2026 P.C.:
1. Both these Petitions arise from a common judgment delivered by the Co operative Appellate Court in a dispute initiated by an employee against a Co operative Bank. The employee had approached the Co operative Court challenging the action of the Bank in terminating his services. The Co operative Court framed the issue of jurisdiction and held that it had the authority to entertain the dispute. However, after examining the material on record, it dismissed the claim on merits.
2. The employee carried the matter in Appeal No. 174 of 2009 before the Co operative Appellate Court. The Appellate Court 1 ::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2026 20:48:17 ::: 60-WP-9508-11+Final.doc reappreciated the material and partly allowed the Appeal. It recorded a finding that the dismissal of the employee was illegal and instead of directing reinstatement, it awarded damages quantified at Rs. 11 lakhs for wrongful termination. Thus, while the dispute was rejected at the first stage, the Appellate Court granted substantial relief.
3. Both sides are dissatisfied. The Bank questions the very jurisdiction of the Co operative Court and the Appellate Court to entertain such a dispute. The employee, on the other hand, seeks appropriate relief in his favour. Hence, both have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Writ Petition No. 9508 of 2011 is filed by the Bank. Writ Petition No. 2352 of 2011 is filed by the employee on the original side of this Court. Since both Petitions arise from the same judgment and involve common questions, they are being decided together.
5. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Bank is founded on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange (2017) 5 SCC 371. In that decision, the Apex Court examined the scope of jurisdiction of the Co operative Court in matters relating to termination of employees of Co operative Societies. The Supreme Court held in clear terms that disputes pertaining to dismissal or termination of employees do not fall within the ambit of Section 91 of the 2 ::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2026 20:48:17 ::: 60-WP-9508-11+Final.doc Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act and therefore cannot be adjudicated by the Co operative Court.
6. This view has been consistently followed. A Co ordinate Bench of this Court in Survarnayug Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Suresh Shivajirao Kale and Others, decided on 06 October 2023 , reiterated that service disputes of employees of Co operative Societies are outside the jurisdiction of the Co operative Court.
Once the Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the issue and the same principle has been applied by this Court, the position of law admits no ambiguity.
7. In the present case, though the Co operative Court recorded a finding that it had jurisdiction, that finding cannot survive in view of the binding declaration of law by the Apex Court. Jurisdiction goes to the root. If the forum itself lacks authority, any adjudication on merits becomes irrelevant. An order passed without jurisdiction cannot be sustained merely because it contains findings on facts. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated 05 April 2011 passed by the Co operative Appellate Court in Appeal No. 174 of 2009 cannot stand in law and is set aside.
8. The consequence of holding that the Co operative Court lacked jurisdiction is that the employee must seek his remedy before a competent forum. It is therefore clarified that the employee was at liberty to institute a civil suit challenging the disciplinary inquiry and termination. Since the employee has 3 ::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2026 20:48:17 ::: 60-WP-9508-11+Final.doc expired during the pendency of these proceedings, his legal representatives may, if so advised, institute such a civil suit in accordance with law.
9. As regards limitation, the employee had pursued the remedy before the Co operative Court and thereafter in Appeal and in these Writ Petitions. The time spent in prosecuting these proceedings cannot be ignored. In order to ensure that the remedy before the Civil Court is not defeated on technical grounds, it is clarified that the period commencing from the institution of the Co operative dispute till the date of this judgment shall be excluded while computing limitation, in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
10. In view of the above discussion, both the Petitions stand disposed of.
11. The amount deposited by the Bank in this Court pursuant to interim orders shall be refunded to the Bank along with accrued interest, if any.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4 ::: Uploaded on - 11/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/02/2026 20:48:17 :::