Bombay High Court

TEACHERS CO--OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., THR ITS SECRETARYversusPAVANKUMAR MAHADEO CHOURE

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Labour Court’s order of reinstatement and back‑wages.

Summary

The petition filed by Teachers Co‑operative Credit Society Ltd. challenged a Labour Court order that reinstated Pavankumar Mahadeo Choure and awarded back‑wages. The petitioner raised three objections: lack of jurisdiction of the Labour Court because the dispute allegedly fell under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act; the non‑inclusion of the society’s Chairman as a party; and the award of back‑wages without sufficient proof that the employee was unemployed. The High Court held that the employee qualified as a "workman" and the dispute concerned illegal termination, which is within the Labour Court’s jurisdiction, and that the society was properly represented by its Secretary, making the Chairman’s presence unnecessary. It also found that the employee had expressly stated he was not gainfully employed, satisfying the burden of proof for back‑wages. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court affirmed the Labour Court’s award and dismissed the writ petition as without merit.

Issues considered

Whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain a termination dispute involving a co‑operative society under the Maharashtra Co‑operative Societies Act.
Whether the Chairman of the co‑operative society needed to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
Whether back‑wages could be awarded in the absence of material proving the employee’s unemployment.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act — s. 91

Subjects

jurisdiction
labour law
co‑operative societies
reinstatement
back‑wages
termination
workmen

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:10046
29-wp-7439-2025.odt
(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7439 OF 2025

Teachers Co--operative Credit Society Ltd., Thr Its Secretary
VERSUS
Pavankumar Mahadeo Choure
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. A.A. Nimbalkar h/f Mr. Salunke
Vasant Digambarrao
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. R.D. Khadap
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : MARCH 04, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Present petition takes exception to order dated

28.04.2025 passed by Member, Industrial Court, Aurangabad in

Revision (ULP) No.28 of 2024, thereby upholding order dated

30.03.2024 passed by learned Judge, Labour Court, Aurangabad in

Complaint (ULP) No.02 of 2014, whereby petitioner is directed to

reinstate respondent in service along with back-wages.

2. Mr. Nimbalkar, learned advocate appearing for petitioner

would raise following three legal objections to impugned order. He

would submit that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the

complaint made against petitioner/co-operative society. The dispute

could have been filed before Co-operative Court. He would further

submit that the Chairman of society was necessary party. However, he

was not joined as party, therefore, proceeding is vitiated. Thirdly, he

submits that back-wages have been erroneously awarded in absence
29-wp-7439-2025.odt
(2)

of insufficient material on behalf of complainant to indicate that he

was not gainfully employed.

3. So far as first objection to jurisdiction of Labour Court is

concerned, it cannot be disputed that complainant falls within the

definition of “workmen”. The controversy is purely as regards to

illegal termination/discharge of services of respondent. It cannot be

recognized as “dispute” within meaning of Section 91 of Maharashtra

Co-operative Societies Act. Apparently, aforesaid objection was not

even raised before Labour Court or Industrial Court and same is

sought to be raised first time in this petition. This Court did not find

any substance in objection. Hence, it is liable to be rejected.

4. The second objection is that Chairman of society was not

added as party. Pertinently, society is made party through Secretary.

Although Chairman is party to resolution regarding termination of

service of respondent, the complaint was filed against society, who is

represented through the Secretary. It cannot be said that Chairman of

society in person is necessary party to decide the dispute, hence,

second contention is also not acceptable. The third contention raised

that Labour Court has awarded back-wages without evidence on part

of complainant depicting his non-employment. Perusal of pleadings

and evidence would show that respondent/employee has specifically

made a statement that he was not gainfully employed during

pendency of complaint. He was cross-examined on behalf of
29-wp-7439-2025.odt
(3)

petitioner, however, there is no suggestion to say that he was gainfully

employed or earning his livelihood by any alternate employment.

Once, the respondent/complainant had made a specific statement

during course of evidence that he was not gainfully employed, it was

burden upon petitioner/employer to show that he was gainfully

employed.

5. Mr. Khadap, learned advocate appearing for respondent

rightly relied upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidlaya

(D.ED.) and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 in support of his

contention that once it is proved that termination is illegal and

employee was not gainfully employed, back-wages follows.

6. In result, writ petition sans merit, hence, dismissed.

(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

Mujaheed//

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…