( 1 ) THIS Writ petition under Art. 227, is directed against the order made by the Labour Court, Hubli, on an application made under S. 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is Chairman of a Society registered under the Karnataka co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Respondent-1 was one of its employees. The employee made an application before the Labour Court complaining that the Society had not paid gratuity and also two months salary due to him. The Labour Court accepted the application and determined the smount due to the applicant, directing the society to pay Rs. 8,157-45 p. The correctness of the said order is called into question in this petition. The first Question raised for the petitioner regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the application, presents little difficulty. The matter in dispute relates to the service conditions of the employee of the Society. The dispute regarding the service conditions cannot be said to be "touching the business" of the Society provided by S 70 (1) of the karnatakaa Co-operative Societies Act. Following the principles in Deccan merchants Co-op Bank Ltd v. Dalichand Juaraj Jain AIR. 1969 SC. 1320 and Co-op Central bank Ltd v. Addl Industrial Tribunal AIR. 1970 SC. 248. , this Court in Kunnimellihalr dodda Pramanand Prathami Pattin Vvavasaya Sahakari Sangh Ltd v. Shivapva Guddavpa Surad (1972) 2 Myslj. 327 . observed that the words "touching the business" in S. 70 (l) of the Act have, in the context, a limited meaning, viz, that it should be equated with the actual trading or commercial or other similar business activity of the Society and should not be extended to matters like regulating the conditions of service of its employees the first contention, therefore, fails. ( 3 ) THE further and, perhaps more attractive submission which was presented on behalf of the petitioner was that, the gratuity is payable on the basis of the basic wage of the employee and not on his total emoluments. A case much relied on in support of the contention was Gaziabad Enqq Co v. Its Workers AIR. 1970 SC. 390. . In the said decision, the Supreme Court was considering the pattern of fixing the gratuity by the industrial adjudication. A case much relied on in support of the contention was Gaziabad Enqq Co v. Its Workers AIR. 1970 SC. 390. . In the said decision, the Supreme Court was considering the pattern of fixing the gratuity by the industrial adjudication. The court observed that there were cases where gratuity was fixed relating to the basic wage and there were cases also where gratuity was fixed on the consolidated wage Including dearness allowance depending on the properity of the concern, needs of the workmen and the prevailing economic conditions examined in the light of the auxiliary benefls which the workmen may get on determination of employment. Those observations, In my view, are not of much assistance to the case on hand. We have got to understand the meaning and the scope of the word' pay occurring in Rule 18 (4) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Rules, 1960. The said rule so far as it is relevant provides: (4) Gratuity- (i) The Committee of a Co-operative Society shall shall grant gratuities on retirement to the employees of the Co-operative Society or on his death to his nominees or legal heirs or representatives subject to the following conditions- (a) * * * (b) * * (c) When an employee who has put in more than ten years service retires from service or if he dies while in service, gratuity not exceeding a month's pay for every year of service which he was drawing on the date retirement, or death, as the case may be. (ii) The maximum amount payable to any employee shall not exceed fifteen months' pay under any circumstances. ( 4 ) THE word 'pay' has been explained to mean "the average monthly salary drawn during the last year of the employee's active service". If the word 'pay' has to be understood with a limited meaning as being only basic wage, the above explanation perhaps would become unnecessary because, the basic wage of an employee in any year ordinarily remains the same in the pay scale admissible to his post with the annual increment. When the rule refers to "average monthly salary'' it should be inolusive of the allowance which mav be varying depending upon the different allowances granted to the emplovee. When the rule refers to "average monthly salary'' it should be inolusive of the allowance which mav be varying depending upon the different allowances granted to the emplovee. This is also the scheme of payment of gratuity provided under the Pavment of Gratuity Act, 1972 whereunder the word 'wage has been defined to mean "all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty including dearness allowance. ( 5 ) MY view further finds support from a Bench decision of the Madras high Court in Kumaravelu Pillai v Madurai Dist Co-op Supply and Marketing society Ltd, (5 ). In that case the Court affirming the view taken in the earlier decision, observed that the salarv. pay and wages for the purpose of pavment of gratuity should normally be regarded as including dearness allowance. In the circumstances. I think the Labour Court was justified in granting the gratuity on the basis of the total remuneration drawn by the employee. ( 6 ) THE last contention urged for the petitioner related to the pavment of two months' pay. It was urged that the employee did not actually work for the said two months and therefore he was not entitled to any salary for that period'. This contention has to be referred only to be rejected. The employee had four months earned leave to his credit out of which two months leave was refused at the time of his retirement. The pay for the said two months was claimed as he was entitled to it and was rightly granted by the Labour Court. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed; but I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .