D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Cane Co-operative Society registered under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (thereinafter referred to as the Act) and the services of the employees are governed by the provisions of the Act, the rules framed thereunder. The registered byelaws of the society and the regulations framed under Section 122 of the act. Under Section 63 of the Act, every co-operative society is required to establish a contributory provident fund for the benefit of the employees to which shall be credited all the contributions made by the employees of the society in accordance with the bye-laws of the society, but this provision is applicable in the case of a co-operative society having five or more employees holding whole-time substantive appointment in the society. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 5, Sri Giri Sant Pandeys was the Accountant in the society and there is no dispute regarding maintenance of provident fund. The contributory provident fund for his benefit was maintained. He worked as Accountant in three Co-operative Societies, namely, Cane Co-operative society Ltd. Babubhan, Cane Co-operative Society Ltd. Basti and Co-operative cane Development Society Ltd. Tinich (for brevity, hereinafter (referred to as the Tinich Sarniti ). He, on attaining the age of superannuation, retired on 18-11-1987 while posted (at Tinich Sarniti. In the three Co-operative societies, where he worked, his provident fund was separately maintained. ( 3 ) THE petitioner not having been paid his provident fund by all the three Co-operative Societies took shelter under the provisions of Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by making a petition before the labour Court, Gorakhpur. The Labour Court decided in favour of the respondent No. 5 and granted relief against all the three Co-operative societies. ( 4 ) THE present petition is filed by the Co-operative Cane Development society Ltd. Tinich only seeking the relief for quashing of the order of the labour Court dated 5-1-1989 and also the consequential order of issuance of recovery certificate dated 8-8-1989 and the order of the Tahsildaf requesting the petitioner Society for making the payment dated 2-1-1990. The controversy, in this petition, is confined only so far as the claim. of the Respondent no. 5 against the petitioner Society is concerned. The controversy, in this petition, is confined only so far as the claim. of the Respondent no. 5 against the petitioner Society is concerned. ( 5 ) THE writ petition is being taken up for final hearing on the joint request of the counsel for the parties as the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and the controversy involved is in a limited compass. ( 6 ) THE brief facts, set up by the respondent No. 5, were that he was the employees for the petitioner Society and on his superannuation, he was not paid contributory provident fund wherefor he was entitled under the law. The claim of the respondent No. 5 was resisted by the petitioner society on the basis that the contributory provident fund was maintained in the post office savings bank account. Tinich and since the respondent no. 5 was the Accountant, the pass book of his contributory provident fund and other accounts record were with him and he withdrew from the said savings bank account Rs. 1,750-00 on 8-6-1979 and Rs. 100/-on 10-12-1979, totalling Rs. 1,850-00, and there remained only Rs. 5. 46 in the pass book. The withdrawal was made by the respondent No. 5 without any permission or direction of the petitioner Society and the respondent No. 5 did not return the pass book to the petitioner Society even subsequent to his retirement. The respondent No. 5 set up his case that the provident fund pass book remained with the petitioner Society and the same was pledged with the society and no amount could be withdrawn by him without the sanction permission of the petitioner Society. ( 7 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. ( 8 ) BEFORE the Labour Court, the petitioner society made an application for summoning the record from the concerned post office relating to the provident fund account of the respondent No. 5 maintained in the post office, and also the Post Master, whereby it would have been establish that as to-who had withdrawn the amount, whether there was any authority or not and whether the account was pledged with the society or not. It is admitted case of both the parties that such an application was moved before the labour Court, and the Labour Court allowed the application, but neither the post Master nor any record was summoned, In such a position, it is clearly. 3 lapse on the part of the Labour Court. Under Rule 24 of the Industrial disputes (Central) Rules. 1957, the Labour Court is invested with the same powers as are vested in the Civil Courts under the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit in respect of the matters, namely, discovery and inspection, granting adjournment and reception of evidence taken on affidavit, and the labour Court may summon or examine any person whose evidence appears to it to be material. Since the Labour Court did not summon the relevant record from the post office though the order on the application of the petitioner was made, and did not examine the Post Master, it should not have recorded a finding against the petitioner Society. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the Labour court, without any material, has said, in its order, that possibly the amount had been embezzled by the society. It is admitted by the counsel for the respondent that it was not his case that any amount was embezzled by the society and he did not lead any evidence to this effect. Under the circumstances, the conduct of the Presiding Officer, Sri S. A. Abbasi, is unfair. He should not have recorded the rinding regarding embezzlement of the amount by the society on his own speculation and a caution is issued to him for remaining careful in future. This finding is set aside. The conduct of the society can not be criticised unless there are specific allegation and there is material in support of that allegation and that material has established the allegation subjecting the criticism of the society. ( 10 ) LASTLY, the submission as advanced by the counsel for the respondent no. 5 was that a finding of fact has been recorded and this Court may refrain from interfering with the finding of fact. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 stated that the pass book remained with the society and the same was pledged in the name of the society and no withdrawal could have been effected without the written permission of the society. The Respondent no. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 stated that the pass book remained with the society and the same was pledged in the name of the society and no withdrawal could have been effected without the written permission of the society. The Respondent no. 5 has failed to prove any of these things, i e. the fact that the pass book remained with the society. He has not disclosed as to with whom the pro? vident fund pass book was lying. Secondly, he has failed to establish the fact that the pass book was pledged with the society and the amount could not have been withdrawn without the permission of the society. The findings recorded by the Labour Court, without establishment of the necessary ingredients, are no finding in the eye of law and that cannot be sustained. ( 11 ) I am of the view that it is a case worth sending back to the Labour court for consideration afresh on merits after summoning the record concerning the provident fund account of the respondent No. 5 from the post office and also to examine the Post Master and after considering the evidence on merits to record a finding. ( 12 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed and the order of the labour Court dated 5-1-1989 is set aside together with the consequential orders so far as they relate to the Co-operative Cane Development Society ltd. , Tinich. The order relating to the other two Societies shall stand final, the Labour Court shall decide the dispute within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. In the circumstances, I make no order as to costs. Petition allowed. .