ORDER This application was directed to be disposed of as a contested application on prayers being made by parties. 2. In this application, the petitioners have challenged the Government Annexure ‘D’ to the writ application. By the said notification, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Cooperation, Government of West Bengal, communicated the decision of the Governor, made in exercise of power under sub-s. 5 of S. 39 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, inter alia not to allow the Central Co-operative Banks and Primary Land Development Banks, incurring financial losses or having accumulated losses of the past, and receiving assistance from the State Government, to increase their establishment costs by way of granting additional financial benefit either in the shape of variable dearness allowance or enhanced pay scale or both to its employees without the approval of the State Government. It was further embodied in the said notification, that proposal for enhancing Dearness Allowance for the staff was to be submitted to the State Government through the Registrar of Co-operative Societies West Bengal for approval. The said notification was issued in supersession of all previous orders and notifications. The petitioners’ case is that on the basis of the said notification the respondent Bank has stopped payment of the variable dearness allowance even on the basis of the rate accepted by the Managing Committee after taking into consideration the price index. It may be noted at this stage that though the reliefs were prayed for in the petition, at the stage of arguments, relief relating to V.D.A. alone was pressed. The petitioners have contended that the government has no power to issue such directive in terms of S. 39(5) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act. Secondly, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is a pending industrial dispute, where one of the issues is payment of such variable Dearness Allowance received by the petitioners since 1973 and pending such industrial dispute, the respondents, the Bank Authorities, have no power to discontinue such payment, without obtaining necessary approval from the authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners, in this connection, have referred to and relied upon the provisions of S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners, in this connection, have referred to and relied upon the provisions of S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that clause 4 of Appendix to Chapter IV of the W. B. Co-operative Societies Rules does not apply to the instant case unless there is an alteration of the scale or the rate of variable Dearness Allowance but whatever alteration of the amount has occurred, has been due to variation in the price index, which alteration is not covered by the provisions of the said clause 4 of Appendix to Chapter IV. It has also been urged, on behalf of the petitioners, that the Management of the Society, even assuming but not admitting that clause 4 of Appendix to Chapter IV does apply to the facts of the present case, has not taken any step for obtaining the approval of the Registrar, in forms of the said Clause but has stopped the payment on their own––an action which does not show its bona fides. Lastly, it has been argued on behalf the petitioners that the power to vary the decision about payment of variable Dearness Allowance vests in the Managing Committee alone and the Executive Officer has no right to effect such variation or refuse, to pay in terms of the regulation of the Managing Committee. 3. Mr. A. P. Chatterjee, Learned Senior Standing Counsel, appealing for respondents 5 to 7, has contended, in the first place that in view of the principles land down in AIR 1977 SC 113 no writ is maintainable against the Co-operative Society and accordingly the application itself is liable to be thrown out in limine. Secondly, it has been argued by Mr. Chatterjee that clause 4 of Appendix to Chapter IV of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Rules is a specific bar to payment of such variable D.A. which would result in increase of expenditure for the Co-operative Society, without approval of the Registrar. Therefore, at best, according to Mr. Chatterjee, the matter may be referred to the Registrar but without the necessary approval, the petitioners have no right to claim any writ against the Co-operative Society for making payment of such variable D.A. In this connection it has been contended by Mr. Chatterjee that the term 'scale of' does not relate to pay alone but to allowances also. Chatterjee, the matter may be referred to the Registrar but without the necessary approval, the petitioners have no right to claim any writ against the Co-operative Society for making payment of such variable D.A. In this connection it has been contended by Mr. Chatterjee that the term 'scale of' does not relate to pay alone but to allowances also. If there is any ambiguity on that question, Mr. Chatterjee submits, the construction of the said Clause should be made keeping in view the purpose and object of the whole Act and no construction of the said Clause should be made which would prejudicially effect the interest of the Co-operative movement. 4. On behalf of the respondents nos. 1 and 2, after adopting the submissions of Mr. Chatterjee, it has been argued by Mr. B. S. Chakraborty, that S. 33 of the Industrial Dispute Act does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Secondly, it has been argued that Executive Officer was really functioning as the Managing Committee and as such he had all the powers to alter the resolution of the Managing Committee. 5. It may be noted at this stage that although when the application had been initially moved, Mr. K. K. Chakraborty appeared on behalf of respondent no. 4 ultimately when the matter appeared before me since 30th of July, 1984 and was being heard thereafter, there was no appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4. The hearing was concluded and judgment reserved on 21.9.84 but since I felt that in the interest of justice the application should be disposed of without issuing any Rule, I directed that further information be given to Mr. K. K. Chakraborty, Advocate. In pursuance of such intimation Mr. Chakraborty ultimately on 7.11.84 appeared and prayed for 10 days' time. The matter was accordingly heard further on 27.11.84 and 28.11.84. 6. Mr. Sircar, leading Mr. Chakraborty, in addition to the submissions made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel, has submitted that the residuary clause constituting second limb of S. 39(5) supra is wider and confers power for control of establishment cost also and the adoption of the words 'any other action' clearly confer the correctness of such construction Marginal notes cannot control such operation to this connection. Mr. Mr. Sircar has referred to page 303 of Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn) and page 196 of 'Craies on Statute Law.' To sustain applicability of the Appendix, Mr. Sircar drew my attention to provisions of S. 142 (XXII) and Rule 53(7) of the above Act and Rules. 7. Upon the submissions made by the learned Counsel, appearing for the respective parties, the following points emerge for my consideration :–– 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief through writ in view of the settled legal position that no writ lies against Co-operative Society? 2. Whether the State Government has power u/s. 39(5) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act to pass the impugned orders? 3. Whether the provisions of Clause 4 of the Appendix to Chapter 4 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Rules operate as bar to the payments of the variable dearness allowances as claimed by the petitioners? 4. Whether the impugned stoppage of payment of variable D. A. is hit by non-compliance with S. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. I propose to deal with the aforesaid points hereinbelow seriatim. 8. Re. 1 : It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that no application for writ is maintainable against the Co-operative Society and reliance on their behalf has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Navagrah Co-operative Control Bank Ltd v. Narayan Rath reported in AIR 1981 SC 112. No doubt the observations of the Supreme Court in the said decision has neither been reversed nor have lost their binding force but in view of the expending horizon of the scope of interference by Court of writ, consistent with the progress and development of the concept of Welfare State, it is high time that the position is reviewed by the Supreme Court and guideline is laid down by it. Reference in this connection may be made to the instances of interference in writ jurisdiction in cases which were, until very recently, beyond reach of writ forum as reognised in the cases of Ramana v. International Air Port Authority reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 and Manager, Government Branch Press v. Beliappa reported in AIR 1979 SC 429 and Ajoy Hasia v. Khalid Mujib reported in AIR 1981 SC 486. I am of course not unmindful of the fact that legally, in view of the unchanged position in law as regards the Co-operative Societies, I have no power to issue any writ against such society. Mr. Bose, appearing for the petitioners, however, tried to meet the submission s of Mr. Chatterjee, Mr. Sircar and Mr. B. C. Chakraborty, the learned Advocate for the respondents, by submitting that his clients are entitled to relief as basic cause of action comprises the Government notification dated 11.11.1983, which is annexure D to the writ application. There is no dispute about the power of Court of writ to interfere with such Government notification if the same is found liable to such interference on merits. Consequently, the question of non-maintainability of a writ against a Cooperative Society is not strictly relevant for the present purpose. 9. Re. 2 : Upon a proper construction of S. 39(5) of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, it appears that the power vested in the State Government under the said sub-section cannot he exercised for the purpose of preventing payment of variable dearness allowance to the employees of a Co-operative Society. Section 39 clearly specifies transactions with regard to which such a power can be exercised and the contention raised on behalf of respondents that even in cases of payment of variable dearness allowance, in terms of the sub-s. 5, the Government is entitled to interfere by issuing necessary direction in the interest of Co-operative movement in general, cannot be accepted. The transactions covered by S. 39 are mortgage or loan transactions and any transaction other than the some would be clearly outside the purview of the said section or the sub-section. The impugned orders passed under sub s. 5 of S. 39 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act is therefore liable to be struck down or declared unenforceable. It may be noted at this stage that no other statutory provision has been shown to me on behalf of the respondents wherein such a power in the State Government can be traced, though in Chapter III of the Act, enough power has been conferred on the State Government to exercise effective control over all types of mismanagement, including financial mismanagement of Cooperative Societies. 10. The words 'any other action' in sub-s. 5 of S. 39 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act should be interpreted ejusdem generis. 10. The words 'any other action' in sub-s. 5 of S. 39 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act should be interpreted ejusdem generis. The principles of interpretation as embodied in Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes or 'Craies on Statute Law, relied on by Mr. Sircar, to exclude application of ejusdem generic rule, though of undoubted correctness cannot apply in the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the application of principle of 'ejusdem generis' the payment of Dearness Allowance cannot be brought within the category of loans. 11. Re. 3 : Regarding the above point, since I have already held following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court as mentioned hereinabove that no writ can be issued against the Cooperative Society, no decision on the above point is called for. 12. Re. 4 : Since the Industrial dispute is pending before the Second Industrial Tribunal, I am not inclined to express any opinion on this point so that the tribunal on appropriate occasion may deal with the same freely. 13. In view of my findings above, I allow the application in part. Let a writ of Mandamus issue commanding respondent no. 4 to rescind and/or cancel the impugned government notification dated 11th November, 1983 which is annexure D to the writ application. Let a writ of certiorari be also issued quashing the said impugned notification which is annexure D to the writ application. The application is allowed only to the above extent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, each party will bear its own costs. All the interim orders issued during the pendency of the application are vacated. Prayer for stay of operation of this order made on behalf of some of the respondents is refused. Application allowed in part.