YESHAVANTRAO ABAJIRAO KADAM Vs. DOODHGANGA VEDGANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order of the learned trial Judge Co-operative Court No. 1 Kolhapur dated 21-7-89 whereby he dismissed the dispute filed by the Appellant who was the original disputant.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case are, the present Appellant has filed the dispute in the Court of the Judge, Co-operative Court, No. 1 Kolhapur, Case No. 112/75 against the present Respondents. (1) Dudhganga Vedganga Sahakari sakhar Karkhana and one Hindurao Balwant Patil, since deceased as a party. It was the case of the disputant that he was serving in opponent No, 1 karkhana from 16-3-61 and from 19-2-71 he was appointed as Managing director thereafter one Mr. B. B. Mulik was appointed as Managing Director. Hence Vice Chairman of opponent No. 1 Karkhana Shri Narayan Desai has issued an order and as such the disputant was to hand over the charge to shri Mulik on 8-6-74. Then onwards disputant was working as an Administrative Officer and was getting Rs. 930/- per month as pay. There was one dispute filed in respect of the appointment of Shri Mulik and injunction order has obtained by one Shri K. G. More in dispute No. 1209/74 and the Court has pleased to retrained Shri Mulik acting as Managing Director until further orders and the charge of the post was handed over to the disputant and this order was passed on 18-6-74. There was in appeal filed against the said order and the Appellate Court, (Appeal No. 38/84) dismissed the appeal. Then afterwards, the then Chairman Hindurao Balwant Patil issued order directing the Appellant and disputant that he should hand over the charge as he stands retired on superannuation of attending the age of 60. It is contention of the disputant that there is no provision in the bye-laws of the society in respect of the age and orders of the Centre Wage Board for the wages etc. entries are not applicable to the disputant on the superannuation. The learned trial Court after hearing both the sides and after recording the evidence, dismissed the dispute of the disputant and against that order this appeal is filed,

(3.) WE have heard arguments of the learned Advocates at greater length. Shri Chavan learned Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant contended that the disputant entered the service of the opponent karkhana on 16-3-61 and he was promoted as a Secretary on 19-2-71. He was also directed to held charge of the Managing Director as incharge till 31-5-74 when b. B. Mulik was appointed as Managing Director as per the direction of the Court Shri Mulik was restrained from taking over as Managing director. The Chairman A. B. Patil without any authority terminated the service of the present Appellant without any reference order or direction from the, appointment order. Shri Chavan therefore contended that there is no provision in the bye-laws regarding the superannuation etc. Shri Chavan learned Advocate for the Appellant further contended that the contentions or the provisions as maintained in second Central Wage Board for the entry are meaitit for 'the 'officers or the staff working in the Sugar Factories as mentioned on 'appendix 11-5a of" trie said Wage Board report and now the Secretary of 'the Managing Director post is not incorporated in it. It was contentions of the learned Advdcate that he continues the service as there is no provision in bye-laws regarding the superannuation or retirement ot the age. He con-tended that the' order passed by the Chairman, there is no service rule that the appellant, As he attended the age of 60 does not stand to reasons. He prayed'that 3 months notice is required before any order is passed. However, it was his contention that there was enemity between the Appellant and the then Chairman H. B. Patil and with a view to take revenge, the then Chair-matt issaed notice of termination which is illegal. Shri Chavan referred to the written statement of the Respondent and contended that it is not clear as to how the dispute is not tenable under Section 91, On the contrary, it was his contention that the dispute is tenable under Section 91 because it pertains to ordrer issued by the Karkhana. In fact, the contentions of the respondents with the disputant had no locus standi to claim any relief is not proper. . However, mere contentions of the Respondents that the recom-mendation of the Wage Board are applicable to the disputant or not clear " and applicable. The issues are framed at page 7 and observations are on page 9 of the judgment. Shri Chavan referred two cases (1) Shetkari Sakhar karkhana v. B. Kulkule [1979 MLJ 211]; and another- case (?)Maharashtra Co-operative Housing Finance Society Ltd. , v. V. S. Loni and another, [1984 MLJ 297] referring to these two cases he contended that the dispute is tenable and there is as being no provisions under the bye-law or no contentions in the contract regarding this superannuation, he continues to be in the service of the Opponent Karkhana and is enable to get the pay as claimed,