Judgment :- 1. This writ petition raises an important question as to whether a dispute between member employees of a co-operative society relating to retrenchment, non-employment and demotion can be the subject-matter of reference by the State Government under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, or whether such a dispute falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The petitioner is the workmen of Salem Cooperative Motor Society, which is a society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. With regard to retrenchment of an inspector, non-employment of a conductor and demotion of three drivers as cleaners, disputes arose. The Labour Officer submitted a report to the Government pointing out the contention of the society that the employees being share holders, the matter has got to be adjudicated only under the Cooperative Societies Act. The Government accepted that report and declined (sic) to make a reference. This writ petition is filed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to reconsider the matter. The question of retrenchment of a member employee of a co-operative society arose for consideration before Ramachandra Iyer, J. as he then was. The learned Judge held that such a dispute is one which could not be disposed of by the Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act, but is one that could be validly referred to the Industrial Court. That decision is reported In S.A.Co-op. Motor Transport Society v. S. Batcha 1960 2 L.L.J. 693; 73 L.W. 708. But, in appeal, a Bench of this court took a different view and held that being member-employees the aggrieved members should get their claims adjudicated only under the relevant provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act. This decision of the Bench is reported is S.A.Co-op. Motor Transport Society, v. Syed Batcha 1964 I L.L.J. 280. A single Judge of this court Kailasam, J. has taken the view in Kasturbanagar Co-op. House Constn. Society v. Somdararajan 1967-2 L.L.J. 348; 80 L.W. 157 that the case of retrenchment by the society and termination of servises of an employee of a society are not matters which could be decided by the Registrar, but are matters which could be the subject-matter of a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. House Constn. Society v. Somdararajan 1967-2 L.L.J. 348; 80 L.W. 157 that the case of retrenchment by the society and termination of servises of an employee of a society are not matters which could be decided by the Registrar, but are matters which could be the subject-matter of a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. In Co-operative Central Bank v. Addl, Industrial Tribunal, A.P. 1969-2 L.L.J. 698 the question arose before the Supreme Court whether certain disputes between a co-operative society and its member-employees could validly form the subject-matter of reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, or are matters which could be decided only by the Registrar. The points in controversy related to a number of service conditions, such as salary, dearness allowance, special allowance, conveyance charges, etc., etc. In that case, the Industrial Tribunal held that the reference was competent. That view was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It was contended in appeal before the Supreme Court that the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act contained relevant provisions under which it was competent for the Registrar to settle the disputes and that therefore, the reference was in-incompetent. The Supreme Court negatived this contention and held that the matters which were in controversy were not such as could be properly adjudicated upon by the Registrar, and that, therefore, the reference was competent. The Supreme Court has referred to certain authorities cited before it, and one of the cases noted was South Arcot Co-op. Motor Transport Society Ltd. v. Syed Batcha 1960 2 L.L.J. 693; 73 L.W. 708. The relevant observation of the learned Judge in that case has been extracted obviously by way of approval. But, it does not appear from the report that the decision of the Bench, which reversed the decision of the learned Judge, was cited before the Supreme Court. Mr. Ramaswami, appearing for the petitioner, contended that in as much as the Supreme Court has quoted with approval the observation of the learned single Judge, the view of the learned single Judge should be taken as having been approved as correct and that, therefore, in the instant case, the matters are not such which could be validly disposed of by the Registrar and that the State Government was, therefore, not right in declining to make a reference. In as much as this point is likely to arise frequently, it is better that the matter is decided by a Bench. In these circumstances, the papers may be placed before my Lord, the Chief Justice, for orders as to the posting of the case before a Bench Pursuant to the above order of reference, this writ petition coming for hearing the Court made the following: (The Chief Justice) 3. The petition is for a direction to the State Government to reconsider the question of making a reference under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. By an order dated 24th April 1970, the State Government, after having considered the conciliation report, directed that there was no authorisation for the Union to raise a dispute in respect of the non-employment of one S. Selvappan, and that in so far as the non-employmet of S.A. Deenadhayalu and four other drivers was concerned, since they were shareholders of the Society, they could not be regarded as workmen, and therefore, there was no industrial dispute which called for a reference. The petition has been placed before a Division Bench in that the South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society, Ltd. v. Syed Batcha and others, 1964 I L.L.J. 280 supports the view in the impugned order. 4. The South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society, Ltd. v. Syed Batcha 1964-1 L.L.J. 280 was also a case of a Society for ex-servicemen. Anantanarayanan, J., as he then was, and Veokatadri, J. expressed the view that since the employees concerned were members of the Society, the relationship between the parties could not be considered to be that of master and servant. They considered, therefore, that they were not workmen, and so there could be no industrial dispute. Since we do not share this view, we should have referred the matter to a fuller Bench. There is, however, one consideration which makes it unnecessary to have resort to that course. In that case, some of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societes Act, which have an important bearing upon the question, were not noticed. It is possible, therefore, to consider the judgment in that case as per in curiam . S. 18(1)(c) is to the effect that no person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a society if he is a paid employee of the Society. It is possible, therefore, to consider the judgment in that case as per in curiam . S. 18(1)(c) is to the effect that no person shall be eligible for admission as a member of a society if he is a paid employee of the Society. On becoming an employee of the society, a member shall cease to be as such under S. 18(2)(c). But this provision will not apply, however, as seen from S. 18(3), to a person seeking admission to, or to a member of, a society, which has as its principal object the provision of employment to its members. That means that notwithstanding the fact that a person is a member of a society, when employed in the society, the relationship of master and servant will come into existence in such a society. This provision was not noticed by the two learned Judges. Apparently, their attention was not directed to it. Quite apart from S. 18(3), a registered society is a body corporate. That is what S. 31 of the Act says. As such, it has a separate personality, with a perpetual succession and a common seal as well as the powers to hold property, to enter into contracts, institute and defend suits and other legal proceedings and do all things necessary for the purposes for which it was constituted. It follows, therefore, that a member of a society can well be its employee. It cannot be said that in such a case, the question of an employer being also an employee arises. Catherine Lee v. Lees Air Farming Ltd. 1961 A.C. 12 is directly in point. The Judicial Committee held that in such a case the employee can well be regarded as a workman of the society. The view we have taken receives support from Kerala State Handloom Weavers Co-operative Society v. State of Kerala 1964-1-L.L.J. 559. Kailasam, J., in the Kasturbanagar Co-operative House Construction Society Ltd., by Secretary v. K. Soundararajan 1967-1-L.L.J. 348; 80 L.W. 157 took much the same view, though the decision in that case was rendered in the context of the particular reliefs asked for. 5. That means, the view taken by the Government in the impugned order as regards S.A. Deenadayalu and four other drivers who were demoted cannot be sustained. 5. That means, the view taken by the Government in the impugned order as regards S.A. Deenadayalu and four other drivers who were demoted cannot be sustained. Notwithstanding the fact that they were members of the society, they were also workmen of the society, and the dispute raised by them or on their behalf was an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. Although the order of the Government is erroneous in that respect, we feel we are not called upon to direct the Government to make a reference. This is because the record shows that Subramaniam, Krishnaswami, Chinna Gounder and Elumalai were given the option to work as cleaners, and they accepted the post of cleaners. They could, therefore, hardly ask for a compulsory arbitration in respect of their demotion from the post of drivers to that of cleaners. As for Selvappan, the counsel for the petitioner himself stated that he is not within the scope of the writ petition at all. As for Deenadhayalu, Checking Inspector, his was a case of retrenchment and the relief he has prayed for is not entirely within the scope of the authority of the Registrar of Co-operative societies. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Government will have to reconsider whether the industrial dispute concerning his retrenchment does not call for a reference. While there will be no direction for reconsideration of the cases of Subramaniam, Krishnaswami, Chinna Gounder and Elumalai, a direction will go to the Government to reconsider the case of Deenadhayalu, the Checking Inspector. 6. To this limited extent the petition is allowed and in other respects it is dismissed. No costs.