Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 34 (0.40 seconds)Section 88 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960
Section 43 in The Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act, 1960 [Entire Act]
The Maharashtra State ... vs Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange on 30 March, 2017
27. Since the Respondent-employee has relied upon provisions of
section 88 of the Act of 1960, it would be apposite to make a reference to
order dated 11 September 2014 passed by the Minister, Co-operation in
Appeal No.783 of 2013 filed by the Respondent-employee. That Appeal
was filed by Respondent-employee challenging the order dated 26
August 2013 holding him responsible for causing loss of Rs.29,73,947/-.
The Minister, Co-operation has set aside the order dated 26 August 2013
qua the Respondent-employee by his order dated 11 September 2014. In
that order dated 11 September 2014, one of the findings recorded by the
Minister, Co-operation is that the Respondent-employee was not in a
position to 'take' any policy decision about the Petitioner-Bank, but his
role was restricted only to 'implement' the policy decisions taken by the
Board of Directors. This finding recorded by the Minister, Co-operation
would tend to negate the submission of Respondent-employee that he
was associated with business or management of the Society. It is however
not necessary to delve deeper into this aspect as his alleged association
with business or management of the Petitioner-Bank becomes irrelevant
for the purpose of determining jurisdiction of Co-operative Court under
section 91 of the Act of 1960. As per the dictum of the judgment of the
Apex Court in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance
Corporation Limited (supra) every service dispute sought to be raised by
an employee or an officer of a Co-operative Society would fall outside the
jurisdiction of the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the Act of 1960,
regardless of the fact whether he was associated with business or
management of the society.
Gujarat State Co-Operative Land ... vs P.R. Mankad And Ors. on 23 January, 1979
In Gujarat State Coop. Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R.
Mankad, (1979) 3 SCC 123 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 225, an employee working as
Additional Supervisor was removed from service by giving one month's pay in
lieu of notice under the Staff Regulations. He had issued a notice under the
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, as he was an employee as defined
under Section 2(13) of the said Act. One of the questions that was considered
by this Court was whether a dispute raised by the said employee for setting
aside his removal from service on the ground that it was an act of victimisation
and for reinstatement in service with back wages was one "touching the
management or business of the society", within the contemplation of the
Cooperative Societies Act. This Court held that the expression "any dispute"