B. C. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Single Judge, who heard this petition, felt that the decision of this Court in Gwalior District Co-operative Bank Ltd. Gwalior v. Ramesh Chandra Mangal, [1979 M. P. L. J. 631] relating to the rights of the employees of the Co-operative bank to seek relief of reinstatesment on the dismissal/removal being illegal, needed reconsideration by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us. ( 2 ) THE facts are that the petitioner was in the employment of the Nimad jila Kendraiya Sahakari Bank Ltd; Khandwa and was a confirmed suprevisor. Service Rules framed under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh co-operative Societies Act, 1960 governed his employment. On 6-1-1975 the petitioner's services were terminated without any prior inquiry and without assigning any reasons for the termination. The petitioner approached the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 55 (2) of the Act, his claim was dismissed and it was found that the case was one of retrenchment for which three months' notice alone was sufficient. Against that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Registrar, co-operative Societies, who by order dated 28-12-1978, accepted that appeal and held the order terminating the petitioner's services bad. Relief of reinstatement was granted. The Additional Registrar held that the petitioner was entitled protection guaranteed under Rules 43, 44 and 45 of the Service rules and was entitled to a charge-sheet and an inquiry before his services could be terminated. The Bank preferred an appeal to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue also held by its order dated 25th March, 1980, that the petitioner was engaged in trade union activities for which he was warned and the record showed that the Bank was unhappy with his union activities. It was, therefore, concluded that the petitioner's removal was a result of those activities which resulted in some indiscipline amongst the employees and was not congenial of harmoneous relationship between the employee and the employer. The termination was held an act of victimization on account of petitioner's trade union activities. The Board has ultimately found that a Departmental Enquiry ought to have proceeded against the petitioner before his services were terminated. All the same, feeling bound by the decision is Ramesh Chandra Mangal's case (supra), the Board refused to grant re-instatement and held the petitioner entitled to only damages. The Board has ultimately found that a Departmental Enquiry ought to have proceeded against the petitioner before his services were terminated. All the same, feeling bound by the decision is Ramesh Chandra Mangal's case (supra), the Board refused to grant re-instatement and held the petitioner entitled to only damages. A compensation has been awarded to the petitioner in a sum equal to an amount of one month's pay for each completed year of service. The petitioner claims that the Board was wrong in refusing re-instatement which could have been granted to the petitioner on a finding that his removal from service was an act of victimization due to trade union activities and not a termination simpliciter. ( 3 ) SECTION 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, before its amendment by Ordinance 22 of 1975, [published in Madhya pradesh Gazette dated 20th November, 1975 and confirmed by Act No. 14 of 1976, was as follows :"55. Registrar's power to determine terms of employment in societies. (I) The Registrar may from time to time frame rules governing the terms of employment and working conditions in a society of a class of societies and the society or the class of societies to which such terms of employment and of working conditions are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf. (2) Where a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant registrar, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society, and its employees. "by the amendment, vide Act No. 14 of 1976, in sub-section (2) the words "terms of employment, working conditions and" have been deleted. In exercise of powers under Section 55 (1) of the Act, Rules have been framed relating to the terms of employment and working conditions of employee of the Co-operative Central Bank of Madhya Pradesh. It is well settled that where a statute authorises either the Government or any other authority to frame rules and the rules are so framed, the rules would have the force of statute. They will be deemed to have been incorporated as part of the statute. It is well settled that where a statute authorises either the Government or any other authority to frame rules and the rules are so framed, the rules would have the force of statute. They will be deemed to have been incorporated as part of the statute. The rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Act would, therefore, be statutory. (See : The Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. The Additional industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, [ 1969 (2) SCC 43 ]. According to rule 18, the services of a temporary or permanent employee may be terminated by the Board by an order in writing issued by the President on its behalf after giving one month's/three months' notice to such temporary (permanent)employee or one month's/three months' pay in lieu of notice. Rule 43 which relates to punishment, first describes certain acts which may tantamount to gross misconduct or minor misconduct. Rule 44 provides for various punishments to be inflicted upon an employee found guilty of either gross misconduct or minor misconduct. Dismissal or removal or discharge as punishment is permissible to be inflicted upon an employee who is found guilty of gross misconduct as defined in Rule 43 (1 ). Rule 45 mentions the authorities competent to take action in respect of each classes of employees of a Cooperative bank. Rule 45 (3) then is as under :"no employees of the Bank can be awarded punishment for grossmisconduct under sub-rule (1) of Rule 44 unless the employee has been given a notice in Form B appended to the Rules in duplicate either personally or by registered post. The employee shall sign and return one copy of the notice to the competent authority. The competent authority shall thereafter hold an enquiry. No employee shall be represented during the enquiry by any legal practitioner. The employee shall be given full opportunity to defend his case by producing evidence in his support as well as by cross-examining witnesses appearing against him. After completion of the enquiry the competent authority shall arrive at the conclusion in respect of each charge framed against the employee and issue a notice to the employee indicating the punishment proposed to be inflicted on the employee in respect of such charge proved, separately cumulatively and calling up the employee to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted. The competent authority shall take into consideration any representation that the employee any make in reply to the show cause notice and shall also give personal bearing to the show cause notice, if so demanded by the employee before passing final order. A copy of the order of the competent authority awarding punishment shall be supplied to the employee. ''the facts narrated above clearly indicate, and it is also the finding of the board, that the procedure laid down in Rule 45 was not followed and the petitioner was dismissed as a measure of punishment for his trade union activities. Petitioner's dismissal was thus in violation of Rule 45 (3 ). ( 4 ) SECTION 55 (2) authorises the Registrar or any other officer appointed by him not below the rank of the Assistant Registrar to "decide" a dispute referred to him regarding disciplinary action taken by the society against his employees and this may also include a decision whether the disciplinary action was in contravention of the rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the Act. If the Registrar hearing such a dispute finds that the disciplinary action is in breach of the rules, it cannot be denied that he will have jurisdiction to set aside that disciplinary action including the dismissal of the employee. This would only mean conceding jurisdiction to the authority appointed under Section 55 (2) when seized of a dispute referred to thereunder, a right to declare the action of the employer illegal being in contravention of the statutory rules. The necessary consequence of setting aside the dismissal or removal of an employee in breach of the rules is that to that employee is restored back his status which he had vis-a-vis his employer (society) before the termination of his services. The authority hearing the dispute under Section 55 (2) must, therefore, be held to have that power and jurisdiction to direct the restoration of such status which would only mean that it shall have jurisdiction to direct reinstatement of the employee the moment it concludes that the action of the employer (society)in dismissing and/or removing its employee is in breach of the statutory rules, ( 5 ) AN employee engaged in an industry has a right to approach the industrial Tribunals and challenge his removal or dismissal from service and claim reinstatement. Earlier this could only be done collectively. Earlier this could only be done collectively. Industrial disputes Act, 1947, however, has undergone a change by Amending Act nos. 45 of 1965 and 45 of 1971. The result of these amending Acts is to include individual disputes also as industrial disputes. The effect of this inclusion is that an individual employee engaged in industry can well approach the labour Court and quwarion his dismissal or removal from service. If the Industrial Court finds the removal or dismissal to be illegal, it certainly has jurisdiction to direct reinstatement as also payment of back wages. Since an employee similarly placed in an industry is entitled to reinstatement in case his dismissal or removal is found to be illegal, the employee of a Co-operative Society similarly placed should not be denied the similar relief of reinstatement. The Registrar or the authority hearing a dispute under Section 55 (2) against the dismissal or ramoval of an employee of a Co-operative Society must, therefore, be held possessed of jurisdiction to grant reinstatement in case the dismissal or removal is found to be illegal and in contravention of the rules. ( 6 ) THE matter may also be viewed with yet another angle. A Cooperative Society can remove or dismiss its employee bat when it intends to do so as a result of disciplinary action and by way of punishment, it can do so only after following the procedure laid down in the rules. The society after making necessary enquiry into the charges may also find the charges not proved and in that event the employee would have to continue in service. If the finding is otherwise, removal or dismissal may be the consequence. Under Section 55 (2) the employee such a disciplinary action of removal or. dismissal from service, can raise a dispute before the Registrar or such authority as may be appointed and is entitled to demonstrate before that authority that the view taken by the society is erroneous and unwarranted. The authority may accept the contention so raised by the employee and consequently may set aside the action of the society in dismissing or removing the employee. The authority may accept the contention so raised by the employee and consequently may set aside the action of the society in dismissing or removing the employee. This jurisdiction so vested in the Registrar or the competent authority is akin to powers of an appellate authority hearing appeal against an original action and must, therefore, include a right and jurisdiction to issue all such orders and directions which the society itself can't pass or issue. Since the society after the enquiry can't direct continuance of service, the Registrar or the authority hearing the dispute under Section 55 can as well pass a like direction of continuance in service. ( 7 ) WE may now proceed to examine a few authorities of this Court on the subject. In Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Market Federation Ltd. [1976 M. P. L. J. 376], one of the questions referred to the Full Bench was whether the High Court can issue an appropriate writ, direction or order against a Co-operative Society or its officer who has in violation of the Act or rules or bye-laws, dismissed its employees or terminated his services, for reinstatement and/or with back wages. It was observed that whenever there is a statutory requirement directing the society to perform the same, and if the society does not obey it and acts in violation of the same, the person who comes to the Court, does not come for the performance of the contract of service, but clearly comes for the enforcement of his legal rights, created in his favour by virtue of the provisions of the statute, directing the society to act in a particular manner. It was further said that inspite of a contract of service between the society and its employee, the employment which are governed by statutory provisions will always be an appropriate subject matter for issue of a writ, if any action is taken by the employer society in violation of statutory provisions. It will always be open for a Court to direct continuance of service of such an employee of the society whose dismissal from service is found to be in contravention of statutory provisions and this will be so even against the wishes of the employer. It will always be open for a Court to direct continuance of service of such an employee of the society whose dismissal from service is found to be in contravention of statutory provisions and this will be so even against the wishes of the employer. The Full Bench said :"what the employee would be claiming in such a case is not the enforcement of a qontract of persopal service but declaration of statutory invalidity of the act done by the employer. "referring to Section 55 of the Act, it was said that Section 55 (2) provides a forum for deciding the dispute and the Section 55 (1) makes obligatory the observance of those rules by the society. Thus, in Ramswarup's case [supra], the view takes seems to be that wherever a Co-operative Society by dismissing its employee contravenes the statutory rules, the Registrar hearing a dispute under Section 55 (2) does have power to direct reinstatement of the employee in case the termination of service is found to be in contravention of the rules. In Rashtriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. Presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, jabalpur, [1975 J. L. J. 732], the question referred to the Full Bench was whether Section 55 (2) of the Act completely ousts the jurisdiction of the industrial Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in respect of all industrial disputes in the State of Madhya Pradesh, concerning employes of a Co-operative Society C. P. Sen, J, delivering the majority judgment in that case, observed ;"the sweeping observations of the Division Bench of this Court that the M. P. Co-operative Act prevails over the Industrial Disputes act and the later Act can have no application in Madhya Pradesh in respect of employees of co-operative societies is contrary to the two Supreme Court decisions and is, therefore, no longer good law. At the most, the State Act could have prevailed with respect to disputes covered under Section 55 (2) of the Act. At the most, the State Act could have prevailed with respect to disputes covered under Section 55 (2) of the Act. "it was emphasized that under Section 55 (2) the Registrar or his nominee does not passess the comprehensive jurisdiction exercised by the Industrial tribunals and courts functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act and that the jurisdiction of the Registrar or his nominee would relate to the dispute about the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken against the employee in terms of the provisions of the Co-operative societies Act and the rules and the bye-laws. The effect of these two Full bench decisions was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in jagmohan Singh v. Board of Revenue [1978 R. N. 109 (H. C.)]. The conclusion reached by the Division Bench is in these terms :"however, if the termination of service contravenes any statutory provision, the order of termination would be invalid. The matter was examined in Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Marketing federation Ltd. [ ( 1976 MPLJ 376 )]. In that case, it was held that where a Co-operative Society dismiss its employeeor terminates his service in violation of the Co-operative Societies Act or the rules or statutory bye-laws, the order oftermination, would be invalid and the employee would be entitled to reinstatement,"in Jagmohan Singh's case \supra], however, it was found that the order of termination was in bad faith but not in violation of any service condition or the provisions of the Act, or rules or bye-laws. The services were only temporary and, therefore, the society could terminate the service at any time. It was, consequently, held that Deputy Registrar hearing the matter under section 55 (2) could not direct reinstatement. In our opinion, therefore, the position is that where the disciplinary action resulting in dismissal or removal of the employee of a Co-operative Society is in violation of the act or statutory rules, the Registrar or his nominee hearing the dispute referred to it regarding such dismissal or termination shall have power to direct reinstatement on a finding that the dismissal or termination was illegal being in contravention of the Act or statutory rules. Even in Ramesh chandra Mangal's case [supra], the Division Bench has observed that the m. P. Co-operative Central Bank Employees, Terms of Employment and working Conditions Rules framed under Section 55 (1) are not mere bye-laws but are statutory rules. The Bench, however, appears to be of the view that though statutory, the rules merely regulated the relationship of the employer and the employee and were binding on both the parties. It was, therefore, held that such a contract between the Co-operative bank and its employee was in no way different from a service contract between two private parties except in that the conditions of contract were now provided by the statute. Ramswarup's case was not followed as it was felt that the decision was not in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra pradesh [1969 (2) S. C. C. 43]. It was at the same time noted that the supreme Court was concerned with the effect of certain bye-laws, framed by the Co-operative Bank and that the bye-laws did not have any statutory force. The Supreme Court in that case observed that the bye-laws framed by the Bank only for the purpose of regulating its management and business and would bind the Bank and its employee the same way as conditions of service laid down by the contract between the parties. The Supreme Court held:"in fact, after such bye-laws laying down, the conditions of service will have to be treated as conditions accepted by the employee when entering the service and will thus bind him like conditions of service specifically framing part of the contract of service. "the Division Bench, after referring to these observations of the Supreme court, rightly proceeded to say the Rules framed under Section 55 (1) of the act have statutory force and yet equated them with kind of the bye-laws, considered by the Supreme Court in its decision in Co-operative Central Bank v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, A. P. [supra]. In our opinion, it is here that the Division Bench, deciding Ramesh Chandra Mangal's case [supra] fell into an error. Once it was held that the Rules have statutory force, it was not correct to equate them with the kind of bye-laws framed only for internal management and working of the society and thus not having the force of law. In our opinion, it is here that the Division Bench, deciding Ramesh Chandra Mangal's case [supra] fell into an error. Once it was held that the Rules have statutory force, it was not correct to equate them with the kind of bye-laws framed only for internal management and working of the society and thus not having the force of law. In our opinion, the action of removal or dismissal of the employee of a Co-operative society in contravention of the statutory Rules does entitle the employee to continue in service and. the Registrar or his nominee hearing a dispute under Section 55 (2) must be held to have jurisdiction to direct reinstatement on a finding that the removal or dismissal is in breach of statutory rules. Even in Ramesh Chandra Mangal's case [supra] the ultimate decision is that the dismissal of the employee being wholly unauthorised and illegal would be a nullity and could be ignored. The Division Bench found it difficult, in these circumstances, to hold otherwise than to reinstate the employee. ( 8 ) WE have earlier shown that in the present case, the termination of petitioner's service was an act of victimisation due to his trade union activities and that the mandatory procedure prescribed in Rule 45 of the rules was not followed. It is, therefore, clear that the removal of the petitioner from service of the respondent Bank was in total violation of the Rules and therefore illegal. The petitioner, in our judgment, therefore, is entitled to continue in service and thus has a right to be reinstated. The Board of revenue was, therefore, not right in refusing the petitioner the relief of reinstatement and instead directing payment of certain amount as damages for wrongful termination of service. ( 9 ) THE petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of Board of revenue dated 25th March, 1980 (Annexure-A) is quashed and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated to the post of Supervisor in Nimad Jila Kendriya sahakari Bank Ltd ; Khandwa (Respondent No. 2 ). We further direct that the order dated 28-12-1978 (Annexure-B), passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative societies, Bhopal, awarding the petitioner all pecuniary benefits as a result of his reinstatement be implemented. ( 10 ) THERE shall be no order as to costs. The security amount, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition allowed. .