JUDGMENT R.M. Savant, J. - Rule in all the petitions. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. The above Writ Petitions invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been filed challenging the order dated 01/11/2011 passed by the learned District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao by which order the application filed on behalf of the petitioner Societies, for stopping the disbursal of the balance amount remaining to be paid to the workers in question, came to be rejected. 3. In so far as the Civil Applications are concerned, the petitioner-Societies are seeking modification of the judgment and order reported in 2009 (2) GLR 673 in the matter of Mrs. Madelina Pereira v. Gomantak Mazdoor Sangh and Ors. to the extent of stopping the disbursal of the balance amount remaining in the Court or the amount that would be received by the respondent No. 13 in the original application. 4. The petitioner Credit Society in all the petitions would be referred to as the petitioner-Societies, whereas the Mormugao Handling Agents Association would be referred to as the Society for the sake of convenience. 5. The proceedings in question have arisen out of the reference made to the District Court for dissolution/winding up of the Society known as the Mormugao Handling Agents Association, Vasco da Gama, presently represented by respondent No. 13 in the above petition. The proceedings relating to the distribution of the assets of the said Society are as yet pending in the District Court. In so far as the present petitioner-Societies are concerned, it seems that they had advanced loans to the workers who were in the Mini Pool of the Society in question i.e. Mormugao Handling Agents Association. The arrangement was that the said Society was remitting the entire wages earned by the workers who had taken loan, each month w.e.f. March, 1993 for the credit of their savings account and the loan instalment was being directly recovered from their savings account. The Society had requested to the petitioner-Society that in case of resignation, termination, death etc. on basis of the authorization given by the workers, it undertook to remit whatever dues payable to the worker such as wages, salary, bonus or such other sum due and payable to be made towards his loan amount. The Society had requested to the petitioner-Society that in case of resignation, termination, death etc. on basis of the authorization given by the workers, it undertook to remit whatever dues payable to the worker such as wages, salary, bonus or such other sum due and payable to be made towards his loan amount. It appears that in the proceedings which are pending the said Society had deposited a substantial amount in the District Court. The said amount which was deposited by the Society in the year 1999 was directed to be disbursed to the workers in terms of the appendix A, B & C to the plaint. It is required to be noted that the petitioner-Societies were initially deleted pursuant to the order passed under Order 7 Rule 11. The order passed under Order 7 Rule 11 came to be challenged in this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 278/2007, by the Mormugao Handling Agents Association in which Writ Petition the learned Single Judge by the judgment (supra) directed the petitioner i.e. the Mormugao Handling Agents Association to array the petitioner-Societies as party respondents to the petition as they were also required to be heard in respect of the issue which was being urged in the petition. The petitioner-Societies were accordingly joined as party respondents to the said Writ Petition No. 278/2007. However, the petitioner-Societies, it seems, did not remain present except the Sahakari Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. The other a two namely Vasco Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and Dr. B.R Ambedkar Credit Society Ltd. did not remain present as according to them they had no concern with the issue which was being agitated in the said Writ Petition. As indicated above, the said Writ Petition came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court by judgment and order dated 22/09/2009 which has been reported in the matter of Mrs. Madelina Pereira (supra). The relevant excerpt of the said judgment and order i.e. paragraphs 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 is reproduced herein under for the sake of ready reference : "9. If the Society has assets which remain after satisfying its liability towards workmen whose services were provided through the dissolved Society, other claimants can have their claim. The relevant excerpt of the said judgment and order i.e. paragraphs 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19 & 20 is reproduced herein under for the sake of ready reference : "9. If the Society has assets which remain after satisfying its liability towards workmen whose services were provided through the dissolved Society, other claimants can have their claim. However, when it is not in dispute that so long money in hands of or otherwise belonging to the dissolved Society, belongs to workers, it has first to go to the workmen. 10. When the matter of interest of workmen is involved, protection of their interest is primary consideration and their representation before the Court is imperative and does not depend on the choice of the union to represent them. 16. In these premises, this petition has to succeed. 17. In the midst of hearing, the Court has queried, as to the circumstances in which the wages payable to the workmen could remain unpaid and lie undisbursed, in the Court. In answer, the petitioner has tendered an application giving various details at length. All that can be viewed and noticed is that the details of the list of workmen and workmen-wise money, which is due and payable, is already placed on record in the District Court. 18. Without prejudice to respective claims and contentions, ends of justice would be met if the amount lying in the District Court is not permitted to remain in the same status, and is disbursed to the workmen whose wages those are. 19. The details of amount payable to every individual unless worker, the same is already on record, be produced by the petitioner before District Court within 60 days from today. 20. Amount already deposited in the District Court and amount as may be collected from Life Insurance Corporation of India or any other institution or person be realized, be distributed to the workmen listed in Appendix 1, 2 and 3 or list as may be produced, the payment be made by depositing those in Bank account of the workmen concern. They be given time to produce copy of the passbook so that amount can be deposited in said account. Registry of District Court would do it within reasonable time soon after all details are produced by the petitioner and the unions or workmen." 6. They be given time to produce copy of the passbook so that amount can be deposited in said account. Registry of District Court would do it within reasonable time soon after all details are produced by the petitioner and the unions or workmen." 6. The petitioner-Societies have by their applications dated 2/07/2011, 19/08/2011 and 7/10/2011 prayed that the amount which is directed to be paid to 111 Mini Pool workers (in Writ Petition No. 726 of 2012), 131 Mini Pool workers (in Writ Petition No. 161 of 2013) and 43 Mini Pool workers (in Writ Petition No. 192 of 2013) be paid after deducting the loan amount which they have secured from them. They had further sought directions that the direction be issued to the respective Branch Manager wherein the Mini Pool workers opt to open their respective account so that the money can be deposited. The respondent No. 1 in the proceedings filed its reply stating that the said application is expressly barred having regard to Section 126 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act, 2003. The District Court, as can be seen from the impugned orders dated 1/11/2011. has dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner-Societies principally on the ground that the issue as to whether the amount quoted in the statement is the correct amount would have to be got adjudicated for which purpose the petitioner-Societies may have to resort to necessary legal recourse under the Co-operative Societies Act. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 1/11/2011, which is taken exception to in all the above three petitions. 7. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 8. The learned Senior Counsel Shri S.D. Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Societies submits that it was the obligation of the Society to remit the amounts coming to the share of the workers, who had taken loan from the petitioners-Banks, for satisfaction of the loan. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge was rendered without the aforesaid factual position being placed before it. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioner-Societies cannot be relegated to having recourse to Section 126 when the proceedings in question are pending before the District Court. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the judgment/order passed by the learned Single Judge was rendered without the aforesaid factual position being placed before it. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the petitioner-Societies cannot be relegated to having recourse to Section 126 when the proceedings in question are pending before the District Court. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the statement on the basis of which the petitioner-Societies seek to recover the loan amount bears the endorsement of the petitioner-Societies and therefore there cannot be any' dispute about the amounts mentioned therein. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that assuming that there is any dispute, the same can be resolved before the District Court. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that ultimately what the petitioners in the above petition are seeking is that there should be no further disbursement of the balance amount or of the amount that would be received in future, pending the adjudication of the claim of the petitioners before the District Court. 9. Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 Shri S. Gaonkar i.e. the Union would reiterate the case of the said respondent before the District Court and would contend that there has to be an adjudication as regards the amount which is due to the a petitioner-Societies. The learned Counsel would contend that though petitioner-Societies were made parties in the Writ Petition they did not appear and therefore the modification of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court cannot be called for on the said ground. The learned Counsel would contend that at the highest the petitioners would be entitled to make recovery in respect of the workers whose names appear in the lists of the petitioner-Societies and that would not prevent the disbursal of the amount to the other workers. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to rival contentions. There is no dispute about the fact that the workers whose names appear in the list of the petitioner-Societies have obtained loan from the petitioner-Societies and pursuant to which their monthly wages were being remitted for being adjusted against the loan amount. 10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to rival contentions. There is no dispute about the fact that the workers whose names appear in the list of the petitioner-Societies have obtained loan from the petitioner-Societies and pursuant to which their monthly wages were being remitted for being adjusted against the loan amount. The letter dated 2/04/1997 issued by the Society in question i.e. the Mormugao Handling Agents Association, on which much store has been laid by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner assumes significance. It would therefore be appropriate to refer to the two paragraphs which constitute the said letter which are reproduced herein under for the sake of ready reference : "As requested by the said worker, we have been remitting the entire wages earned by him each month w.e.f. March 93 to your Society for credit of his S. a/c No. 356. Hence, any loan instalments may be directly recovered from his S. a/c. In case of his resignation/termination/death, etc. on basis of authorization, we hereby undertake to remit whatever dues payable to him such as Wages, Salary, Bonus or such other sum due and payable to him by us towards his loan amount." Reading of the said letter, therefore, unequivocally points out that a representation has been made by the said society to the petitioner-Societies and the representation is to the effect that the wages earned by a worker would be remitted to the Savings Account of the worker, from which the loan instalment can be recovered. It is further represented that in case of his termination, resignation, death on the basis of authorization the Society undertook to remit whatever dues payable to him such as wages, salary, bonus, etc. towards his loan account. Hence, in respect of matters over which the Society did not have control i.e. resignation, termination, death, etc. the Society had in terms assured the petitioner-Societies that the dues would be remitted to the petitioner-Societies. The present case is a case where the Society itself had applied for dissolution/its winding up. Therefore, the said condition of the Society remitting the dues would have to apply with equal force, as it is a situation which is of its own making and not a situation over which it did not have control in respect of which it has a made provision as above. 11. Therefore, the said condition of the Society remitting the dues would have to apply with equal force, as it is a situation which is of its own making and not a situation over which it did not have control in respect of which it has a made provision as above. 11. Another aspect to be noted is that the statement of account in respect of the workers who are appearing in the list of the three petitioner-Societies have been endorsed by the Society. Hence, prima facie, at least there cannot be any dispute as regards the amount due to the petitioner-Societies since an application has been made for dissolution/winding up by the Society itself the petitioner-Societies cannot be now left to face with a situation when on account of a technicality the petitioner-Societies have to be relegated to an adjudication under Section 126 of the Goa Co-operative Societies Act. There cannot be two forums before whom the adjudication as regards the disbursal of the assets of the Society is to go on. Hence, the objection raised on behalf of the respondent No. 1 cannot be accepted. 12. As indicated above, the relief which is ultimately sought by the petitioner-Societies is that no further disbursement of the balance amount necessary or disbursal of the amount which would hence forth come to take place pending adjudication of the petitioner-Societies claim. It is required to be borne in mind that the petitioner-Societies being registered Co-operative Societies in that sense are dealing with public funds. In the conspectus of the fact that there is no dispute about the loan being taken by the workers who appear in the list of the three petitioners-Banks, the interest of justice would be served that no further disbursal of the amount lying in the District Court takes place to the workers appearing in the three lists in the three petitioners-Banks, as also, the disbursal of any amount which would now come or is likely to come. The Writ Petitions, are accordingly allowed and the following directions are issued : (i) The amount which has already been disbursed to the Mini Pool workers, who are appearing in the lists of the three banks is not interfered with. However, the same would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending in the District Court. The Writ Petitions, are accordingly allowed and the following directions are issued : (i) The amount which has already been disbursed to the Mini Pool workers, who are appearing in the lists of the three banks is not interfered with. However, the same would be subject to the final outcome of the proceedings pending in the District Court. (ii) The amount which is lying undisbursed or that the amount which would now come and be deposited in the District Court would not be disbursed until the claim of the petitioner-Societies is adjudicated. (iii) It is clarified that the above directions are restricted to the workers who are appearing in the list of the petitioner-Societies and would not cover the other workers. (iv) It is clarified that the petitioner-Societies would be entitled to the amount which is due to it qua a particular worker. (v) Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs.