Judgment : Oral Judgment: By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Cooperative Court on 12.2.2001 dismissing the dispute filed by the petitioner under section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 and the order passed by the Cooperative Appellate Court Nagpur on 31.8.2001 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the cooperative court on 12.2.2001. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Labour Officer on consolidated salary of Rs. 4500/-with free occupation of residential quarter by respondent Sut Girni by an appointment order dated 18.12.1998. The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated after a lapse of 1 ½ year by the termination order dated 27.7.2000. It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was a confirmed Labour Officer after the completion of probation period of six months and his services could not have been terminated by giving him one months notice. The petitioner, therefore, raised a dispute under section 91 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1960 before the Cooperative Court, Amrvati. The Cooperative Court at Amravati, by impugned order dated 12.2.2001 had held that the dispute was not maintainable as the petitioner was not a confirmed employee. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the cooperative Court at Amravati on 12.2.2001 before the Cooperative Appellate Court at Nagpur. The appellate court held that the dispute was maintainable, but since the petitioner was not a permanent employee, his services could have been terminated by one months notice and the appeal was liable to be dismissed. The petitioner has impugned the orders passed by the cooperative court and the cooperative appellate court on 12.2.2001 and 31.8.2001, respectively by filing the instant writ petition. 3. Shri G.G. Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Sut Girni had not framed any rules and it was therefore, necessary to hold on the basis of appointment order dated 18.12.1998 that the petitioner was an employee, after the satisfactory completion of the probation period of six months. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also being granted increments of Rs.450/- prior to his termination on 27.7.2000 and this clearly showed that the petitioner was a confirmed employee of the respondent Sut Girni and his services could not have been terminated by giving one months notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was also being granted increments of Rs.450/- prior to his termination on 27.7.2000 and this clearly showed that the petitioner was a confirmed employee of the respondent Sut Girni and his services could not have been terminated by giving one months notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts were not justified in dismissing the claim of the petitioner. 4. None appears on behalf of the respondent though served. 5. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned orders, along with the appointment order and termination order, it appears that both the courts have not committed any error in holding that the claim of the petitioner could not have been granted. It is necessary to note that the petitioner was appointed on a probation for a period of 6 months. Though it is the case of the Sut Girni that the probation period was extended by one year and it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was confirmed in service after the probation period of six months, none of the parties have filed any documents before the court to show that the probation period was extended or the petitioner was confirmed by an order of confirmation. The appellate court therefore, rightly held that the Sut Girni was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner by issuing a months notice and paying one months salary. The appellate court held and rightly so, that there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner was confirmed in service and his services could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry against him. It is also clear from the appointment order dated 18.12.1998 that even after making the petitioner permanent, notice of one month was on either side provided for leaving the services. On an appreciation of evidence on record, the appellate court held that the probation period in this case was not satisfactorily completed and the services of the petitioner were not confirmed. The cooperative appellate court held and rightly so that the services of the petitioner could have been terminated by issuing one month’s notice in view of the clear terms of the appointment order dated 18.12.1998. The cooperative appellate court held and rightly so that the services of the petitioner could have been terminated by issuing one month’s notice in view of the clear terms of the appointment order dated 18.12.1998. The findings recorded by the cooperative appellate court are pure findings of fact based on a proper appreciation of evidence on record. They do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, so as to interfere with the same in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6. For the reasons aforesaid the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.