Judgment Mittal, J. ( 1. ) This order shall dispose of two writ petitions, being W.P. No. 396 of 2009 and W.P. No. 646 of 2009, as both the petitions have arisen out of a common order dated November 14,2008, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal (hereinafter referred in as the Tribunal). Whereas W.P. No. 396 of 2009 has been filed by Zila Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Maryadit, Rajgath (hereinafter called as the petitioner-Bank), W.P. No. 646 of 2009 has been filed by Swatantralal Saxena, who is the respondent in W.P.No. 396 of 2009, raising a grievance against the grant of only 50% of the back wages. For the sake of convenience, the main order is being passed in W.P. No. 396 of 2009 and the parties shall be referred as per their status in the said writ petition. ( 2. ) The respondent-Swatantralal Saxena was working as Branch Manager with the petitioner-Bank. His services were concededly governed by the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Employees Services (Recuirtment, Control and Conditions of Service), Rules 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as the Act). As per Rule 71 of the Rules, an employee of the Bank is to retire on attaining the age of 58 years. However, the management has been conferred a right to grant extension to an employee to continue to serve till the age of 60 years, if in the opinion of the management, the services of the concerned employee are essential for the Bank and the said employee is physically fit for service. For the aforesaid purpose, a medical certificate from the District Health Officer (Civil Surgeon) is required to be produced. Aright has also been granted to the management that an employee, who has completed the age of 55 years or has completed 25 years of service, may be compulsorly retired, in the interest of the Bank, without assigning any reason, by issuing a notice of three months, or in lieu thereof on payment of the salary for the aforesaid period of three months. ( 3. ( 3. ) The Staff Sub-Committee of the Bank passed an order on September 27,2000, whereby it was directed that since the respondent-Swatantralal Saxena had attained the age of 55 years and had already served for a period of 25 years with the Bank, therefore, in the interest of the Bank, he be compulsorily retired with effect from September 30,2000. A cheque for an amount of salary of three months was sent to the respondent, in lieu of the notice period. ( 4. ) The respondent-Swatantralal Saxena raised a dispute under section 55 (2) of the Act before the Joint Registrar, challenging the order of compulsory retirement. Vide an order dated February 19,2003, the Joint Registrar set aside the said order of compulsory retirement. However, an appeal was preferred by the Bank before the Tribunal, who vide an order dated March 9, 2006, allowed the aforedsaid appeal and remanded the proceedings for a fresh decision to the Joint Registrar. ( 5. ) On reconsideration of the entire matter, through a fresh order dated January 24, 2007, the Joint Registrar has again set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against Swatantralal Saxena and he has been order to be reinstated with the entire salary, payable to him for the period, he had remained out of job. A copy of the order dated January 24,2007 has been appended as Annexure P-5 with the present petition. ( 6. ) Yet again, the aforesaid order of the Joint Registrar was challenged by the petitioner-Bank before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has examined the entire controversy and through an order dated November 14,2008, appended as Annexure P-6, uphold the order of the Joint Registrar, viz-a-viz setting aside of the order of compulsory retirement of the respondent. However, with regard to the payment of arrears of salary to him, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to grant 50% of the back salary to Swatantralal Saxena on reinstatement. ( 7. ) It is in these circumstances that both the parties i.e., the Bank, as well as Swatantralal Saxena have approached this Court through the present two petitions. ( 8. ( 7. ) It is in these circumstances that both the parties i.e., the Bank, as well as Swatantralal Saxena have approached this Court through the present two petitions. ( 8. ) The Tribunal has upheld the order of the Joint Registrar and consequently set aside the order of compulsory retirement passed against the respondent on the ground that the said order had been passed by the Staff Sub-Committee of the Bank, which had no authority to pass such an order. According to the Tribunal, such an order of compulsory retirement of the employee could have been passed only by the Bank itself and not by the Staff Sub Committee. The Bank has maintained that the order of Staff Sub-committee was legal and valid as per law. Similarly, the respondent-Swatantralal Saxena has claimed that he was entitled to the arrears of the entire salary for the period, in which he had remained out of job. ( 9. ) We have heard Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank and Shri N.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent and with their assistance, have also gone through the record of the case. ( 10. ) Shri Sunil Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank has argued that under Rule 71 of the Rules, an employee was entitled to remain in service, till he had attained the age of 58 years and in the interest of the Bank his services could also be continued till he attained the age of 60 years, but the management had an authority to examine the case of an employee, who had attained 55 years of age and who had completed 25 years of service, as to whether continuation of such an employee in service was in the interest of the Bank. According to Shri Jain, since the Staff Sub-Committee of the Bank had examined the case of the respondent, when he had attained the age of 55 years and had already completed 25 years of service, and it was found that it was not in the interest of the Bank to retain him any further, therefore, he had been ordered to be compulsorily retired. Shri Jain has also referred to Section 48 of the Act, to contend that infact that Staff Sub-Committee of the Bank had a jurisdiction and authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement. ( 11. Shri Jain has also referred to Section 48 of the Act, to contend that infact that Staff Sub-Committee of the Bank had a jurisdiction and authority to pass an order of compulsory retirement. ( 11. ) We have duly considered the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank. ( 12. ) Since the only question which arised for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Staff Sub-Committee of the petitioner-Bank had any jurisdiction or authority to order the compulsory retirement of the respondent, therefore, it would be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of section 48 of the Act as under: "48. Final authority in society (1) The final authority in a society shall vest in the general body of members: Provided that the byelaws of a society may provide for the constitution of a smaller body consisting of delegates elected in accordance with such byelaws to exercise powers of the general body or as may be specified in the byelaws of the society. (2) Subject to sub-section (1), the management of every society shall vest in a committee consituted in accordance with this Act or rules made thereunder or byelaws of the society and it shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be conferred or imposed respectively by the Act or rules made thereunder or byelaws of the society." ( 13. ) A perusal of the aforesaid provision clearly indicates that the final authority in a society (the petitioner-bank, being a society under the Act), vests in the general body of the members. However, the proviso to subsection (1) provides that the byelaws of a society may provide for the constitution of a smaller body consisting of delegates elected in accordance with such byelaws to exercise powers of the general body. Only in a situation, where such a delegation is envisaged by the byelaws, the management of the society, shall vest in a committee constituted accordingly. However, in the present case, as has been noticed by the Joint Registrar in the order Annexure P-5, as well as by the Tribunal in the order Annexure P-6, no byelaws had been pointed out, nor have been brought to our notice as well, to indicate that any such delegation under the aforesaid byelaws had ever been made to the Staff Sub-Committee to exercise the powers of the general body for ordering compulsory retirement of an employee. Thus, in absence of the aforesaid delegation through the byelaws, as per the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Act, the final authority of the society is to be treated as vesting in the general body only. The order of compulsory retirement having been passed by the Staff Sub-Committee, the said order cannot be treated to be with any authority and having been validity passed. Thus, we uphold the order passed by the int Registrar, as well as the Tribunal in this regard. ( 14. ) Writ Petition No. 396 of 2009 filed by the petitioner-Bank is thus devoid of any merit, and is dismissed. ( 15. ) With regard to the claim of full salary raised by the respondent, through writ petition No. 646 of 2009, we have examined the controversy and have also perused the order passed by the Tribunal in this regard. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to grant 50% of the back salary to Swatantralal Saxena on reinstatement. In our considered view, a judicial discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, which we do not find it appropriate to interfere with. Obviously, for the period in question, the respondent had not worked with the Bank. In these circumstances, grant of 50% of the back wages to him is just and appropriate in the matter. ( 16. ) In these circumstances we do not find any merit in Writ petition No. 646 of 2009 filed by the respondent, as well. ( 17. ) As a result of the aforesaid discussion, both the writ petitions, being WP No. 396 of 2009 and WP No. 646 of 2009 are hereby dismissed.