JUDGMENT 1. Heard Advocate Shri. T.G. Gaikwad for Petitioner/employer and Advocate Mr. M. S. Kokate for Respondent/workman. 2. Respondent/workman approached Co-operative Court under section 91 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 claiming certain amounts as due and payable to him on account of voluntary retirement scheme floated by petitioner/employer. The Cooperative Court has allowed that dispute and petitioners appeal against it has been dismissed by Co-operative Appellate Court. 3. Shri. Gaikwad contends that Respondent being a workman as defined under section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, the dispute ought to have been filed only before the Industrial Court and Co-operative Court could not have taken any cognizance thereof. He wants to rely upon certain material and findings recorded by Co-operative Court and Cooperative Appellate Court in this regard. 4. Shri. Kokate on the other hand states that apart from contending the respondent is working in "supervisor-A" capacity, the respondent also adduced oral evidence to show that certain leave applications have been cleared by him and he has also exercised actual supervisory function. Learned Counsel, however, fairly states that neither judgment of Co-operative Court nor Co-operative Appellate Court reveal any finding recorded on the strength of that evidence. 5. I find that both the Courts have only reproduced definition in Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. The nature of duties is decisive factor and whether Respondent was performing supervisory duties i.e. whether he was supervising working of employees and whether had any administrative or managerial powers is a question which needs to be answered only after going through the evidence. Hence, appreciation of evidence brought on record by petitioner as also respondent is must to find out exact nature of duties. Only designation as such is not decisive in the matter. 6. The respondent claims that he was appointed in "Supervisor-A" Category. What is the meaning of this appointment and whether any workman is appointed in that category or not, is a question which also falls for determination. 7. As the petitioners raised objection to the jurisdiction of Co-operative Court burden was upon them to substantiate it. Not only this, as they have approached this Court burden was upon them to produce complete material to show the correct position in that respect. That has not been done. 8. The respondent is presently aged about 52 years and dispute is in regard to application of voluntary retirement scheme. Not only this, as they have approached this Court burden was upon them to produce complete material to show the correct position in that respect. That has not been done. 8. The respondent is presently aged about 52 years and dispute is in regard to application of voluntary retirement scheme. Interest of justice will be met with by permitting petitioners to produce necessary material before Co-operative Court to show exact nature of duties discharged by Respondent. Then the Respondent also gets opportunity to meet such material. However, the Co-operative Court has delivered the Award on 24th April, 2009 and for no fault on part of respondent is required to be set aside. 9. Respondent is, therefore, compensated by directing petitioners to pay him costs of Rs.25.000/-. The costs be paid to him by depositing the same before Co-operative Court by 31st March, 2011. If the costs are so deposited, liberty to the Respondent to withdraw the same. 10. If the costs are so deposited, the judgment and Award dated 24th April, 2009 delivered by Co-operative Court, Aurangabad in Dispute No.154 of 2005 shall stand quashed and set aside. Needless to mention that in that event the judgment dated 27th November, 2009 delivered by Co-operative Appellate Court in Appeal No.250 of 2009 shall also lose its sanctity. 11. If the amount is so deposited, Cooperative Court shall permit parties to amend their pleadings and to produce relevant material on record and also give them opportunity to adduce additional evidence if they so desire. Cooperative Court is directed to attempt to decide the matter as early as possible in any case by 31st December, 2011. Parties are directed to appear before the Co-operative Court on 21st March, 2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Needless to mention, Civil Applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, are also disposed of. Ordered accordingly.