G. P. SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a co-operative society. The business of the society is to provide facility for selling and marketing of milk. Respondent No. 1 gajanand was employed as a milk Tester by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in as industry and that the respondent is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent's service were terminated on 25th September, 1979 after a domestic enquiry on certain charges of misconduct. The respondent took recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute relating to the validity of termination of the respondent's service was referred under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court, Indore. The petitioner took a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that in view of Section 55 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. This objection was overruled by the labour Court by its order dated 10th December, 1980. It is that order which the petitioner challenges in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE question relating to the conflict of jurisdiction arising out of section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act was considered by a Full Bench of this court in R. K. M. S. Samiti, Durg v. Presi Officer [ 1975 MPLJ 583 ]. By a majority decision, this Court held that the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act occupy different fields and the adjudication of industrial disputes was not covered by section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In holding so, the Court pointed out that individual disputes to which Section 55 (2) would be attracted were not industrial disputes. The attention of the Court was also drawn to Section 2-A and Section 11-A added in the Industrial Disputes Act by Act No. 35 of 1965 and Act No. 45 of 1971 respectively by which individual disputes relating to discharges, dismissal retrenchment and termination of a workman have been brought within the definition of industrial dispute. The attention of the Court was also drawn to Section 2-A and Section 11-A added in the Industrial Disputes Act by Act No. 35 of 1965 and Act No. 45 of 1971 respectively by which individual disputes relating to discharges, dismissal retrenchment and termination of a workman have been brought within the definition of industrial dispute. Referring to these amendments, the Court held that the employees of the co-operative societies engaged in the industrial activities would be governed by the amended provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and would not be governed by section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act (See paragraph 19 at p. 605 of the report ). What the court meant to say was that if the dispute related to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of an employee who was a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, the resolution of that dispute would be governed by the provisions of that Act and not by Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The view so taken by the Court was on the basis of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution, ( 3 ) SECTION 55 (2) as it stood when the aforesaid Full Bench decision was rendered by this Court read as follows :"55. (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. "learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to the fact that new Section 55 has been substituted by Act No. 14 of 1976. Section 55 (2)as substituted by this Act reads as follows :"55. (2) Where a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society arises between a society and its employees, it shall be referred to the Registrar or any other officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, the Registrar or such officer, as the case may be, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. " ( 4 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution, Section 55 (2) as now substituted by Act no. " ( 4 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution, Section 55 (2) as now substituted by Act no. 14 of 1976, having received the assent of the President, should prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as amended in 1955 and 1971. A perusal of old Section 55 (2) will go to show that the scope of that section was much wider. Section 55 (2) then conferred jurisdiction on the registrar in respect of disputes regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action. New Section 55 (2) very much curtails the power of the Registrar and only a dispute regarding disciplinary action is now within his jurisdiction. It is difficult to believe that when the State legislature was amending Sect ion 55 by substituting a new section for curtailing the powers of the Registrar, it had the intention, of taking away the jurisdiction of the labour court to decide disputes relating to disciplinary action of termination taken against industrial employees by the co-operative societies. New Section 55 (2) makes no change so far as the disputes relating to disciplinary action are concerned. The Full Bench ruling, therefore, is still applicable for holding that disputes concerning disciplinary action of termination against industrial employees of co-operative societies would be governed by the industrial Disputes Act as amended and not by Section 55 (2) of the Co-operative societies Act. ( 5 ) THE Full Bench ruling is binding on me and following that ruling the petitioner's objection to jurisdiction of the Labour Court must be overruled. The view expressed by the Full Bench on the basis of Article 254 may, however, be open to the criticism that Article 254 applies only when both the legislations, i. e. one passed by Parliament and the other passed by the Stale legislature, cover the subjects enumerated in that concurrent list which is not the position here. The Industrial Disputes Act as amended is a law made under Entry 22 of List III and the Co-operative Secieties Act is a law under entry 32 of List II. One of the competing Acts, namely, the State Act, thus does not pertain to a subject in the concurrent list. The Industrial Disputes Act as amended is a law made under Entry 22 of List III and the Co-operative Secieties Act is a law under entry 32 of List II. One of the competing Acts, namely, the State Act, thus does not pertain to a subject in the concurrent list. In such a situation, if there is a real conflict, the Central Act prevails over the State Act because of parliament's overriding power of legislation under Article 245 and not under article 254 [see M. P. S. R. T. Corporation v. Heeralal, 1980 MPLJ 8 (FB), pp. 17, 18]. But as far as possible such a conflict is to be inferred only as a matter of last resort and the correct approach it is to see whether the apparent conflict can be resolved by harmonious construction. The Co-operative societies Act is a special Act dealing with co-operative societies. Section 55 of the Act, however, is a provision dealing with employees of the co-operative societies in general. The Industrial Disputes Act, on the other hand, is a special Act dealing with the resolution of disputes between industrial employees and their employers. The conflict between the two Acts can be avoided by confining the power of the Registrar under Section 55 (2) to decide disputes relating to disciplinary action of termination against non-industrial employees. on this construction, disciplinary action of termination against the employee who is an industrial employee will give rise to industrial dispute and will be resolved under the Industrial Disputes Act as amended and will not be decided by the Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The labour Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to proceed to decide the dispute which was referred to it under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) THE petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .