Order of the Cooperative Court was challenged by the appellant before the Cooperative Appellate Court in the form of an appeal.
His departmental appeal having dismissed, the respondent approached the Cooperative Court at Aurangabad, which is set up under the Act, on April 19, 2007 challenging the orders of dismissal from service as well as the order rejecting the departmental appeal by filing Dispute No.
On receiving the numberice in the said dispute petition, the Corporation filed an application for rejection of the petition of the respondent on the ground that the Cooperative Court set up under the Act did number have the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the service dispute between the employer and the employee, inasmuch as the dispute in question did number touch upon the business of the society and was number companyered by the provisions of Section 91 of the Act.
61 of 2007.
Present appeal assails the said judgment of the High Court.
This writ petition has also been dismissed vide judgment dated January 21, 2014.
Thereafter, a charge sheet was served upon him and the departmental inquiry companyducted, which resulted in dismissal order dated April 28, 2006 passed by the Corporation, dismissing the respondent from service.
This appeal was dismissed companyfirming the orders of the Cooperative Court.
He was promoted to the post of Branch Manager Class I in the year 2000.
Further challenge was laid by the appellant by filing a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Aurangabad Bench.
For certain acts of misconduct allegedly companymitted by the respondent, he was put under suspension vide orders dated July 11, 2003.
The Cooperative Court dismissed the said application holding that it had the requisite jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
K. SIKRI, J. The appellant, Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited hereinafter referred to as the Corporation , is a companyperative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The respondent had joined the services in the appellant Corporation in the year 1975 as an Inspector.
