ORDER 1. Legal representatives of deceased, Girraj Bindal, have filed this petition against the order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the State Co-operative Tribunal, Bhopal in Revision No. 199/01. 2. Deceased Girraj Bindal, hereinafter, referred to as the 'employee', was appointed as Store Keeper on 3.8.1970. Subsequently, he was posted as Accountant and on 7.8.1982 he was placed under suspension. A charge sheet was issued against Mr. Girraj Bindal. After enquiry a show cause notice was issued to him. He submitted his reply, thereafter, his services were terminated vide order dated 27.1.83. Then, the employee raised a dispute under section 55 (2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act of 1960'. Deputy Registrar set aside the order of termination and ordered reinstatement with back wages after holding that the enquiry was illegal and the employee was not afforded a proper opportunity. 3. Against the aforesaid order a first appeal was filed before the Joint Registrar, which was dismissed. Thereafter, a second appeal was filed before the M.P. State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal. The Tribunal vide, judgment dated 10.2.2000 partly allowed the appeal and modified the order passed by the Courts below and further ordered that the employee be reinstated and the management was directed to conduct the enquiry afresh. The Tribunal disposed of the appeal with the following directions:- "(14) As a result of above discussion this appeal succeeds partly. Impugned order passed by the Courts below are modified to the extent that removal order of the respondent is illegal and he should be reinstated back into service forthwith. But at present he shall be not be entitled to back wages. On the other hand the appellant is free to hold domestic enquiry against the respondent from the stage it has been found vitiated in this judgment in accordance with the principles of natural justice and provisions of Rules 44 (3) of the service rules. In such enquiry, if any, witness shall be examined and record shall be considered in presence of the respondent and he shall be afforded full opportunity to cross examine such witnesses and produce his witnesses in defence, if any. After concluding the enquiry as per rules, appropriate order according to law shall be passed within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. After concluding the enquiry as per rules, appropriate order according to law shall be passed within 6 months from the date of receipt of this order. In case no enquiry is held within the above mentioned period or the respondent is not found guilty of charges, the appellant shall also pay back wages to the respondent from the date of his removal till reinstatement. If he is found guilty and punished there would be no question to pay back wages to the respondent. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs, as incurred. Memo of costs be prepared. Counsel fee be taxed at Rs. 200/-, if already certified. Copy of this order be furnished to both parties. Record of the lower Courts be returned back along with copy of this order." 4. After direction of the Tribunal the President, Cooperative Societies, Shivpuri, conducted fresh enquiry and maintained the earlier order of termination of the employee after holding that the employee was not willing to participate in the enquiry and from the conduct of the employee it appears that he accepted the charges. Against the aforesaid order legal representatives of the employee filed a revision before the Tribunal. That revision has been dismissed by the Tribunal after holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order passed by the President, District Cooperative Society. 5. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the Deputy Registrar set aside the order of termination of the employee and ordered reinstatement with back wages. That order was up held by the Joint Registrar. The Tribunal in second appeal maintained the order of reinstatement, however, it gave liberty to the respondent to conduct a fresh enquiry. Thereafter, the President, of the respondent Society passed an order, Annexure P-2, by which the President up held the order of termination dated 27.1.83. It is clear from the order passed by the President that the order is in violation of principles of law. The President up-held the order of earlier termination on the ground that the employee did not participate in the enquiry and he was not cooperating in the enquiry and in those circumstances, it be presumed that the employee admitted the charges. The findings recorded by the President are against the known principles of law. The President up-held the order of earlier termination on the ground that the employee did not participate in the enquiry and he was not cooperating in the enquiry and in those circumstances, it be presumed that the employee admitted the charges. The findings recorded by the President are against the known principles of law. If an employee is not participating in the enquiry the management could have proceeded exparte against the employee and after recording the evidence of management an order could have been passed. Contrary to this, the President ordered that due to non-participation by the employee it be presumed that the employee accepted the charges and up held the order of termination passed on 27.1.83, which is clearly illegal. Even assuming that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the revision against the order, Annexure P-2, the order is patently illegal. In such circumstances, the legal representatives of the employee could not be directed to file a fresh dispute under section 55 (2) of the Act of 1960 because earlier the employee has had won the case up to the stage of Joint Registrar. Because the employee has already been died, in such circumstances, in our opinion, it would be just and proper to upheld the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and Joint Registrar with regard to reinstatement of the employee with back wages. However, since, the employee has already died hence, there shall be no order of reinstatement. The legal representatives of the deceased employee are entitled to the back wages and post retiral benefits of the employee. 6. Consequently, the appeal of the appellants is allowed. The impugned orders, Annexure P-1 passed by the Tribunal and Annexure P-2 passed by the President of the respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. It is hereby held that the appellants are entitled back wages of the employee and other post retiral benefits. Looking to the facts of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.