Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ application an order passed by the respondent no.1 as contained in Annexure 16 and an order passed by tke respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-14 to the writ application are under challenge. 2. By reason of the aforementioned two orders, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in B. S. Case No.16 of 1982 and B. S. Case 17 of 1982, directed the petitioner to pay the wages in respect of the concerned respondents for the periods mentioned in the separate claim applications as contained in the schedule appended to annexures 7 and 7/a to the writ application giving rise to B, S. Case No.16 pf 1982 and 17 of 1982. 3. For the purpose of disposal of this application it is not accessary to state the facts in details. 4. Suffice it to say that the petitioner is a Society registered under the bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and it is governed by bye-laws framed by it. The said Society is controlled by the State of Bihar in the matter of appointment and it is admitted case that the State of Bihar has issued various circulars from time to time layirg down the criteria with regard to the appointment of paid Manager. 5. Mr. K K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, raised a very short question for decision in this case. He firstly submitted that the respondent nos.3 to 21 are not employees of the petitioner. 6. The purported appointment letter which has been annexed as a sample copy and has been marked as Ext.1 before the Labour Court is contained in annexure 4 to the writ application. From a perusal of the aforementioned offer of appointment as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application, it appears that one Sri Amanat Ali, Secretary of the Selection Committee issued the same. In the said letter it has been mentioned that the addressee thereof (Sanjay kumar) was selected for appointment for the post of the paid Manager. By tht said letter the addressee was directed to appear with all his testimonials in original and medical certificate, at the Ranchi Khunti Central Co-operative society Limited. It has further been mentioned in the said letter that thereafter the addressee shall be deputed for obtaining training in the Co-operative Training centre or in LAMP. 7. By tht said letter the addressee was directed to appear with all his testimonials in original and medical certificate, at the Ranchi Khunti Central Co-operative society Limited. It has further been mentioned in the said letter that thereafter the addressee shall be deputed for obtaining training in the Co-operative Training centre or in LAMP. 7. It is an admitted fact that the aforementioned Sri Amanat Ali was not the Secretary of the petitioner-Society ; but was merely the Secretary of the selection Committee. There can be no doubt that the Selection Committee was constituted only for recommending the names of the persons who might have been found fit by the aforementioned Committee for appointment in the post of the paid Manager but the final offer of appointment was to be issued by the co-operative Society itself. 8. There cannot further be any doubt that the important function like that of making an appointment for the post of the paid Manager must be done by the Managing Committee which is to be constituted in terms of the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 and bye-laws of the society framed thereunder. 9. Mr. K, Bahadur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 21 very fairly conceded that no offer of appointment had been issued by the society itself. However, he drew my attention to Annexures a and a/1 to the counter affidavit and submitted that from a perusal of the aforementioned annexures it would appear that the question as to whether the respondent Nos.3 to 21 were appointed legally or not has been gone into by the competent authority of the Co operative Department meaning thereby the Joint Registrar, who after a thorough enquiry satisfied himself that the said appointments were legally made. In this view of the matter, Mr. Bahadur submits, that there cannot be any dispute that the respondent Nos.3 to 21 were validly appointed by the petitioner-Society. 10. Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply drew my attention to the various circulars issued by the State of Bihar as also the findings recorded by the Labour Court in that regard. He also drew my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.22 to 24 i. e. Secretary, Co-operative Department. 10. Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply drew my attention to the various circulars issued by the State of Bihar as also the findings recorded by the Labour Court in that regard. He also drew my attention to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos.22 to 24 i. e. Secretary, Co-operative Department. Ministry of Co-operative Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, the Registrar, Co-operative Department, ministry of Co-operative, Old Secretariat, Patna, the Additional Registrar, South chotanagpur Division, Co-operative Department, Ranchi, from the perusal whereof it appears that the said respondents themselves categorically stated therein that the appointment of respondent Nos.3 to 21 were not legal. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that the purported enquiry made by the joint Registrar and as reflected in Annexures a and a/i of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 21 was itself not done legally. 11. Mr. N. K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further submitted that under the provisions of Sec.66-B of the Bihar and Orissa co-operative Societies Act, 1935 the State of Bihar is empowered by making either general order special order to fix the nature and number of posts and mode of recruitment required to be done by the Co-operative Society and prescribe certain other matters as enumerated therein which include the method of recruitment and condition of service. 12. In view of the aforementioned provisions of Sec.66-B of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, there cannot be any doubt that the State of Bihar may exercise its jurisdiction over all the Co-operative Societies and, therefore, it necessarily has the statutory right to lay down the criteria for appointments in relation to the matters mentioned therein ; the conditions of appointment and the method of recruitment are such matters which squarely fall within the purview of the aforementioned Sec.66-B of the Bihar and Orissa co-operative Societies Act. 13. Section 28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 provides for a right of an employee to make an application in the event his employer make any reduction from his wages or withhold the same contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Such application, however, is to be filed with such time and before such authority as may be prescribed therefor in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.28 thereof. 14. Such application, however, is to be filed with such time and before such authority as may be prescribed therefor in terms of sub-section (2) of Sec.28 thereof. 14. In this case the short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the respondent No.2, while exercising his jurisdiction purported to be under Sec.28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, could determine the question as to whether there exists a relationship of employee and employer by and between the petitioner No.1 and the respondent Nos.3 to 21 which necessarily involve a complicated question of law and fact. From a perusal of Sec.28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, it is evident that the jurisdiction of the authorities prescribed thereby is a limited one. The aforementioned provision has been engrafted in the Bihar Shops and establishment Act for giving relief to an employee in a summary proceeding. The provisions under Sec.28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act is in pari materia with the provisions of Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages act, 1936. 15. It may be mentioned herein that the Labour Court is also an authority to determine a claim arising out of the deduction from wages or dealing in payment of wages under the provisions of the Payment of Wages Act. However, the provision of Sec.15 of the Payment of Wages Act and Sec.28 of tbe shops and Establishment Act are mutually exclusive. It is for the employee concerned to exercise an option as to whether he would ventilate his grievance before the forum provided under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act or under the Payment of Wages Act or not. The procedure laid down for adjudication of the matter under both the Act are almost similar. The power of the authority under to grant compensation finds place in both the Acts. A Division Bench of this Court reported in Shatrughanjee Sahay V/s. Central tribunal, Patna and others, [1984 LIC 647], categorically held that the provisions of Sec.28 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act and Sec.15 of the payment of Wages Act are almost similar. 16. It is also now a well settled law that an authority under the Payment of Wages Act or under the Minimum Wages Act car, exercise a very limited jurisdiction. 16. It is also now a well settled law that an authority under the Payment of Wages Act or under the Minimum Wages Act car, exercise a very limited jurisdiction. However, such a limited jurisdiction can be exercised with regard to the matters mentioned therein ; meaning thereby in a case arising under Payment of Wages Act the authority can decide the question as to whether the case is one of non-payment of wages or illegal deduction therefrom ; whereas under the minimum Wages Act the jurisdiction of the authority is limited to the question as to whether minimum wages as prescribed by the appropriate Government has paid to the concerned employees or not. Under both the Acts, however, the authorities are entitled tc decide any matter incidental to the questions referred to hereinbefore. It is now a well settled that while deciding such incidental question, the authority under the aforementioned Acts cannot decide either complicated question of law or complicated question of fact or a serious and bonafide dispute with regard to the fact as to whether there exists a relationship of employee and the employer. 17. In the instant case, the question as to whether in fact the petitioner-Society offered appointment to the respondent Nos.3 to 21 was or not, or whether such offer could be made by the Secretary of the Selection Committee (who is not Secretary of the petitioner Society) or not and in any event whether the offer of appointment having been made in contravention of the circulars issued and directions made by the State of Bihar the same can be said to have been legally made or not are all complicated questions of law and fact. 18. In this case as has been hereinbefore even the Registrar of the Co-operative department of the State of Bihar has sworn an affidavit stating therein that such appointments are not valid. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.22 to 24 ; as aforementioned, it has specifically been averred that the purported directions of Joint Registrar as contained in Annexures a and a/1 appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 21 were also illegal and invalid. 19. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.22 to 24 ; as aforementioned, it has specifically been averred that the purported directions of Joint Registrar as contained in Annexures a and a/1 appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 21 were also illegal and invalid. 19. In this case further a question arises as to whether the Registrar or for that matter the Joint Registrar could investigate the matter relating to the validity or otherwise of the offer of appointment made by the Co-operative Society or not. In my opinion, the question relating to the determination of the conditron of service of the employer and the employee and/or determination ot the question with regard to the existence or relationship of employer and employee is not a question which may fall for a decision of the Joint Registrar in terms of section 48 of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 20. In the event it is contended that the Joint Registrar purported to act in his capacity as an officer of the State of Bihar and in exercise of its administrative power, then it must be held that the orders as contained in Annexures a and a/1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 to 21 does not bind the petitioner-Society particularly in view of the fact that it was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Joint Registrar before passing the said orders. 21. In any event such a question does not arise in the present case as the respondent Nos.22 to 24 themselves have asserted in their counter affidavit that orders passed by the then Joint Registrar and as contained in Annexures a and a/1 appended to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos.3 to 21, are wholly illegal and invalid. 22. In my opinion the impugned orders cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the claim application filed by the respondent Nos.2 to 21 and as contained in Annexures 7 and 7/a to the writ application involve complicated questions of law including the interpretation of various circulars issued by the state of Bihar ; quesiion with regards to the illegality or invalidity of the orders passed by the Joint Registrar, the interpretation of Sec.48 and Sec.66-B of the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. Further in the facts and circumstances of this case, it must be held that there is a serious and bonafide dispute as to whether the respondent Nos.3 to 21 were in fact appointed, had undergone training as mentioned in the purported offer of appointment issued by Sri Amanat Ali as contained in Annexure 4 to the writ application. 23. In this situation, I am of the opinion that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had absolutely DO jurisdiction to investigate into such complicated question of law and fact. Reference in this connection may be made to Ambica Mills company Ltd. V/s. S. B. Bhatt [ air 1961 SC 970 ] wherein it has been held as under: "in dealing with claims arising out of deductions or delay made in payment of wages the authority inevitably would have to consider questions incidental to the said matters. In determining the scope of these incidental questions care must be taken to see that under the guise of deciding incidental matters the limited jurisdiction is not unreasonably or unduly extended. Care must also be taken to see that the scope of these incidental questions is not unduly limited so as to affect or impair the considering of questions as to what could be reasonably regarded as incidental questions. Let us revert to the definition of wages prescribed by Sec.2 (vi ). Sec.2 (vi), as it then stood, provided inter alia, that wages means all remuneration capable of being expressed in terms of money which would, if the terms of the contract of employment, express of implied, were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his employment, or of work done in such employment, and it includes any bonus or other additional remuneration of the nature aforesaid which would be so payable and any sum payable to such person by reason of the termination of his employment. It also provided that the word wages did not include five kinds of payments specified in clauses (a)to (e ). Now, if a claim is made by an employee on the ground of alleged illegal deduction or alleged delay in payment of wages, several relevant facts would fall to be considered : Is the applicant an employee of the opponent? And that refers to the subsistence of the relation between the employer and the employee. Now, if a claim is made by an employee on the ground of alleged illegal deduction or alleged delay in payment of wages, several relevant facts would fall to be considered : Is the applicant an employee of the opponent? And that refers to the subsistence of the relation between the employer and the employee. If the said fact is admitted, then the next question would be : what are the terms of employment? Is there any contract of employment in writing or is the contract oral? If that is not a point of dispute between the parties, then it would be necessary to enquire what are the terms of the admitted contract. In some cases a question may arise whether the contract which was subsisting at one time had ceased to subsist and the relationship of employer and employee had come to an end at the relevant period. In regard to an illegal deduction a question may arise whether the look-out declared by the employer is legal or illegal. In regard to contract of service sometimes parties may be at variance and may set up rival contracts and in such a case it may be necessary to enquire which contract was in existence at the relevant time. Some of these questions have in fact been the subject matter of judicial decisions. Vide A. R. Sarin V/s. B. C. Patil, [53 Bom lr 674: AIR 1951 Bom.423]; Vishwanath Tukaram V/s. General manager, Central Railway, [59 Bom. LR 892 : AIR 1958 Bom.111 (FB)] and Sri Umaid Mills Ltd. V/s. Collector of Pali [1960 (2) Lab. LJ 364 Raj. ]: but we do not propose to consider these possible questions in the present appeal, because, in our opinion, it would be inexpedient to lay down any hard and fast or general rule which would afford a determining test to demarcate the field of incidental facts which can be legitimately considered by the authority and those which cannot be so considered. We propose to confine our decision to the facts in the present case. 24. This decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court applies to the fact of this case. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the orders as contain in annexures 14 and 16 are hereby quashed. However, in the circuoastances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.25. 24. This decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court applies to the fact of this case. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the orders as contain in annexures 14 and 16 are hereby quashed. However, in the circuoastances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.25. Before parting with this case it may be observed that the respondent nos.3 to 21 would be entitled to ventilate their grievances before any appropriate forum available to them in law. Petition dismissed.