JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. - On 8th February, 1967, the State Government issued a notification under Section 3, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, stating that the Governor was pleased to accept the recommendations of the wage Board constituted for the Engineering Industry for the grant of interim relief to the workmen of that industry, and that "workers getting as on March 31, 1966, wages (i.e. basic plus dearness allowance, consolidated wage) in the wage range mentioned in items under column I below shall be paid interim relief as shown against each item in column II below." Paragraph 5 of the order related to adjustment of increases in wages or dearness allowance that may have already been sanctioned. Paragraph 8 provided for the kinds of Engineering establishments to which this notification was not to apply. 2. The ten opposite parties, who were employees of the petitioner the District Cooperative Federation (a Central Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act) , made an application, under Section 15 of the payment of Wages Act, before the Prescribed Authority, claiming interim relief in accordance with the Government's notification dated 8th February, 1967, for the period 18th August, 1967 to 31st July, 1968. The petitioner Federation contested the claim. It pleaded that the jurisdiction of the authority to entertain the claim was barred by Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The next plea was that the notification dated 8th February, 1967, was not applicable to the petitioner Federation, because it was covered by clause (iii) of paragraph 8 thereof. The third plea was that the Federation had itself, by an order dated 17th May, 1966, awarded an increase in the dearness allowance to its workmen. And that increase was liable to be adjusted against the interim relief payable under the Government's notification. 3. The Prescribed Authority repelled all the three pleas taken in defence and allowed the application and awarded various amounts, totalling Rs. 1,834. 98 P., to the opposite parties. Aggrieved, the Federation went up in appeal but the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the findings and dismissed the appeal. 4. The Federation thereupon filed the present revision in this Court. A learned Single Judge felt that the revision raised questions of importance which need an authoritative decision by a Division Bench. He referred the case to a larger Bench. That is how the revision has come before us. 5. 4. The Federation thereupon filed the present revision in this Court. A learned Single Judge felt that the revision raised questions of importance which need an authoritative decision by a Division Bench. He referred the case to a larger Bench. That is how the revision has come before us. 5. Four questions require consideration:- (1) Whether Section 70, Cooperative Societies Act applies ? (2) Whether the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is a court within meaning of Section 70, Cooperative Societies Act ? (3) Whether the Federation is entitled to claim adjustment? (4) If para. 8 (iii) of the Notification is applicable? 6. We shall take up the second question first. Sec. 70, Cooperative Societies Act, provides for reference of various kinds of disputes, mentioned in it, to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Rules and then it goes on to say "no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any such dispute." The contention on behalf of the Federation is that a dispute relating to payment of interim relief to the employees is a dispute relating to the conditions of service of the employees, and, as such, it is a dispute which relates to the management or business of the Cooperative Society. Such a dispute is liable to be referred to the Registrar under Sec. 70; and, so, no court can adjudicate such a dispute. For the workmen, the answer given is that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act is not a court within meaning of Section 79, and so, this provision does not exclude the jurisdictions conferred upon the Authority by the payment of Wages Act, learned counsel relies upon a Full-Bench decision of our Court of H. C. D. Mathur v. E.I. Rly. Administration, AIR 1950 Allahabad 80, where it was held that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act was undoubtedly an authority having power to decide disputed questions, but it was not a court so as to be called a civil court subordinate to the High Court. It gave various reasons for this view. It observed that the person appointed is throughout referred to in the Act as the `authority', and not as the `court'. It gave various reasons for this view. It observed that the person appointed is throughout referred to in the Act as the `authority', and not as the `court'. Sec. 22, which excludes the jurisdiction of courts in respect of matters, entrusted to the jurisdiction of the authority shows that the legislature did not intend to constitute that authority as a court, because, otherwise, those words would lead to all impasse and the jurisdiction of the authority itself would be excluded; which would make the whole Act absurd. This Full-Bench is a direct authority for the proposition that the authority created by the Payment of Wages Act is not a court. 7. In our opinion, the word `court' should be interpreted to have been used in Section 70, Cooperative Societies Act, in the same sense, in which it was used in Section 22 of the Payment of Wages Act. Both these Sections were intended to exclude the jurisdiction of courts in relation to matters entrusted to the special tribunals created by the two Acts. They are in pari materia. They should be construed in the same way. So, the word `court' in Section 70 also, in our opinion, refers to the regular courts of law, and not to other special authorities or tribunals constituted by various enactments for adjudicating rights or settling disputes or differences. The Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, not being a court within the meaning of Section 70, Cooperative Societies Act, its jurisdiction will not be excluded, even though the dispute taken for adjudication before that Authority be one, which may also be capable of being referred to the Registrar under Section 70, Since the claim of the workmen before the Authority was maintainable, and, since it could not be defeated on the basis of Section 70, it is, in our opinion, unnecessary to go into the merits of the question whether the claim was a claim relating to the management or business of the Cooperative Society. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the first question posed by us above. 8. The third question presents no difficulty. It appears that on 24th February, 1965, the Government by an administrative order directed all the Heads of Department to grant dearness allowance to permanent Government employees. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the first question posed by us above. 8. The third question presents no difficulty. It appears that on 24th February, 1965, the Government by an administrative order directed all the Heads of Department to grant dearness allowance to permanent Government employees. Admittedly, this order was not applicable to Cooperative Societies, On 9th May, 1966, the Managing Committee of the Federation passed a resolution, granting to its workmen an increase in the dearness allowance to the tune of Rs. 12.50 per month with effect from January, 1966. On the basis of this resolution, the Joint Secretary of the Federation passed an order stating that all the permanent employees of the D. C. F. workshop, are hereby allowed an increment of Rs. 12.50 in the Dearness allowance w.e.f. 1-1-66. It will be seen that neither the resolution nor the order of the joint Secretary were based on the earlier notification of the Government dated 24-2-1965. Further, neither the resolution nor the said order of the joint Secretary of the Federation made the grant of increase in the dearness allowance subject to adjustment against the recommendation of the Wage Board. Paragraph 5 of the Government notification dated 8th February, 1967, provided that where any increase in wages of dearness allowance has already been sanctioned expressly subject to adjustment against the interim or final recommendation to be made by the Wage Board, such adjustment would be permissible to the extent of the interim increase now recommended. Since the increase in the dearness allowance sanctioned by the Federation was not expressly made so subject, it cannot now claim any adjustment in virtue of paragraph 5. 9. The last question is whether the excluding clause (III) of paragraph 8 would be attracted. Paragraph 8 states :- "This order shall not apply to the following classes of Engineering establishments : (i) public sector undertakings which are run departmentally; (ii) establishments employing less than 50 workers; (iii) workshops attached to non-Engineering establishments." On behalf of the Federation, the case was sought to be brought within clause (III) . It was urged that the Federation carries on, inter alia, the business of producing and selling agricultural implements. According to its bye-laws, it has set up a workshop where agricultural implements are manufactured, which in turn, are sold by the other departments of the Society. It was urged that the Federation carries on, inter alia, the business of producing and selling agricultural implements. According to its bye-laws, it has set up a workshop where agricultural implements are manufactured, which in turn, are sold by the other departments of the Society. It was urged that the Society is a non-Engineering establishment, to which it is attached this workshop. The opposite party are workmen in this workshop. 10. The notification dated 8th February, 1967, is an administrative order of the Government. It accepts the recommendations of the Wage Board. The significance of this excluding clause should, in our opinion, be considered in the light of the opinion of the Wage Board on that matter. Paragraph 3.2. of the report of the Wage Board, which is headed as" Exclusions from scope in terms of Resolution-, states :- "Under the terms of Reference of this Wage Board, the steel plants in the Iron and Steel Industry for which separate Wage Board was in operation have been excluded from the purview of this Wage Board. Further, the following classes of engineering establishments also have been excluded from the purview of the Board : (i) Public sector undertakings which are run departmentally; (ii) Establishments employing less than 50 workers; (iii) Workshops attached to non-engineering establishments. On the other hand, founders (except those to which recommendations of any other Wage Board have already been applied) have been specifically included." In paragraph 3.5, the report of the Wage Board explained the significance of the term `workers' mentioned under item (III) of paragraph 3.2. It states:- "3.5. In regard to workshops attached to non-engineering establishments the Board interpreted the term `workshops' mentioned under item (iii) of paragraph 3.2, to imply principally service and maintenance aspect of the non-engineering establishment to which such workshop is attached. In case such a workshop was engaged in substantial diversification and in the manufacture of engineering products for sale, then it would be deemed to come within the purview of this Wage Board. In other words only those workshops which are doing no work other than service or maintenance work of non-engineering establishments are to be excluded from the recommendations of this Board. If a workshop does any work of any other establishment (except the one to which it is attached) , or manufactures engineering products for sale, it would come within the purview of this Board." 11. If a workshop does any work of any other establishment (except the one to which it is attached) , or manufactures engineering products for sale, it would come within the purview of this Board." 11. The petitioner's workshop produces agricultural implements. The petitioner Society sells these agricultural implements. Thus, the workshop is not a maintenance or a repair workshop. It is an integral part of the business of the society. It is not a workshop attached to a non-engineering establishment within the meaning of paragraph 8 (iii) of the notification. The notification was applicable to the opposite parties, who were employees of the petitioner Society. 12. In the result, the application in revision fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs.