PRALHAD VITHALRAO PAWAR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties. "rule". Taken for final hearing forthwith. Both the petitions involve common question of law and hence, are being disposed of by a common judgment. The points for decision, which are raised by the parties, are as under :

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 1048/98, the petitioner was employed as Deputy Chief Engineer with the Kannad Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. at Kannad and by an order dated 21-7-1997, he was removed from the service, for the reasons stated therein. In Writ Petition No. 1805/98, the petitioner was working as Branch Manager with the Osmanabad District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and he was removed from service by an order dated 25-3-1998, for the reasons stated therein. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of the term "workman", as defined under section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or "employer", as defined under section 2 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Both have prayed for the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages and both were employed with a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. (Hereinafter referred to as Co-operative Societies Act ).

(3.) The first question posed for our decision is no more res integra. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of (Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Kadubirdi Pattabhiram Bhatta), 1993 (1) Mh. L. J. 1, held thus :