JUDGMENT : B.N. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner while challenging the validity of Rule 25 of the LAMPS Common Cadre Employees of Key Personnel Service Rules (hereinafter called 'Cadre Rules') which came into force from 1-7-1985 prays for a direction to quash the order dated 13-6-1991 passed by the Cadre Cell, Mayurbhanj Central Co-operative Bank, Ltd. Baripada, retiring him from service with effect from 31-3-1991 (Annexure 3) 2. In the year 1977 various Service Co-operative Societies and Gram Panchayat Grain Gola Co-operative Societies were re-organised and the Large Sized Agricultural Multipurpose Co-operative Societies (for short,'LAMP') were constituted in the district of Mayurbhanj. The LAMPS were affiliated to the Mayurbhanj Central Co-operative Bank,Bari-pada. In the process of re-organisation the existing Co-operative Societies were either amalgamated with LAMPS or liquidated. Purnia Grain Gola Gram Panchayat Society was amalgamated with Baisinga LAMPS and a branch was opened at Purnia. The petitioner had joined Purnia Gram Panchayat Grain Gola Co-operative Society on 8-7-1955 as its Secretary. After its amalgamation with the LAMPS, he joined as its branch manager at Purnia on 1-5- 1978. He avers that there were no rules regarding the service condition of the employees of the Purnia Gram Panchayat Grain Gola Co-operative Society. In the absence of such rules one could continue in service as long as the Co-operative Society needed one's service. But however for the first time in the year 1983 the Registrar of the Co-operative Socie- ties, Orissa passed an order to the effect that no person who has attained the age of 58 years shall be retained in service of a Co-operative Society, and a Society may with the prior permission of the Registrar employ a person who has attained the age of 58 years on a contract basis for a specific period not exceeding two years provided that such person has an outstanding record and technical expertise and his services are essentially required in the interest of the Society (Annexure-1), The Managing Director of Baisinga LAMP by his order No. 377 dated 31-3-1990 (Annexure-2) extended the petitioner's services for a period of five years on the basis o1 a resolution dated 21-2-1990 of the Committee of the Management in view of his outstanding records. However, according to the said order the extension was legally valid only for two years. However, according to the said order the extension was legally valid only for two years. Subsequently in the year 1985 the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies framed the Cadre Rules in exercise of the power u/s 33-A of the Orissa Co operative Societies Act, 1952, without giving notice to the petitioner Rule 25 (a) thereof Says down that the date of retirement of the Key personnel employees in the LAMP is the date on which the employee attains the age of 58 years, provided that the last day of the month shall be the date of superannuation even though he attains the age of superannuation on any day during the same month. The petitioner's date of birth as recorded in the Service Book being 25-3-1933 he attained the age of 58 years in March, 1991, But he was wrongly retired with effect from 31-3-1991 in terms of Rule 25 (a) of the Cadre Rules by ignoring the resolution dated 21-2-1890 and the order dated 2-4-1983 of the Registrar (Annexure-1), though he was entitled to continue in service till 31-3-1993, His further contention is that Rule 25 of the Cadre Rules has been framed in contravention of Sec 25 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and as such, it is invalid and inoperative in terms of Section 25J thereof, 3. Opposite parties 1 and 2 have filed separate counter affida- vits. Their common case is that the petitioner had agreed to the service conditions contained in the said Cadre Rules by which his services came to be governed. The original rules of the Co-operative Societies, 1952 and the bye-laws of the Society in which the petitioner was initially appointed did not contain any service rules of the employees of the Co-opsrative Societies. The order dated 2 4-1983 (Annexure-1) stood superseded by the Cadre Rules framed in 1986 u/s 33-A of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. The so-called order of the manage- ment under Annexure-2 extending the service of the petitioner by 5 years is not a valid one inasmuch as no such resolution was passed by the Committee of Management in a meeting said to have been held on 21-2-1990. The so-called order of the manage- ment under Annexure-2 extending the service of the petitioner by 5 years is not a valid one inasmuch as no such resolution was passed by the Committee of Management in a meeting said to have been held on 21-2-1990. The order of the Managing Director alone cannot give any right to the petitioner to continue in service beyond the age of 58 years The petitioner was aware of his change of employment and service conditions when he was appointed as the Branch Manager of the LAMPS He was paid his wages from time to time on the basis of the pay scales prescribed under the Cadre Rules of 1986. He having agreed to join Branch Manager of the LAMPS and being conscious of the rules the contention of the petitioner that Rule 25 a) is invalid being in contravent.on of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is untenable. 4. Section 33-A of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act 1962 existed in 1935 prior to it amendment on 31-12-1991, read as "33-A. The Registrar may classify the societies in the State into different classes and may ; (a) fix the number and designation of the employees to be employed by the different classes of societies; and (b) make rules regulating the qualification, remuneration allowances and other conditions of service of such employees." 5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a workman while be was serving as the Branch Manager of the LAMPS. The question that arises for consideration therefore is whether Section 9A of the I D Act restricted the Registrar to frame the, Cadre Rules under Sec 33 (As it existed then) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 1962 in super- session of the order of 1983 without giving notice to the petitioner 6. The question that arises for consideration therefore is whether Section 9A of the I D Act restricted the Registrar to frame the, Cadre Rules under Sec 33 (As it existed then) of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. 1962 in super- session of the order of 1983 without giving notice to the petitioner 6. The Orissa Co-operative Societies Act is a special statute and had been enacted by the State Legislature in the year 1962 to meet the rapid development of co-operatives in the State which is an essential need for the success of various development programmes particularly those which are meant to help the weaker sections of the community As the earlier Act of 1952 did not have adequate provisions to deal with co-oparative farms and land mortgage banks, the 1962 Act was enacted which provides for development of co-operatives in certain direction The Registrar of Co operative societies appointed by the State Governmerit has multifarous duties and obligations under the Co-operative Societies Act and occupies a key position to have effective control over the societies Sec.33-A of the Act confers power on the Registrar to make rules regulation the qualification, remuneration, allowances and other conditions of service of the employees of the societies The Cadre Rules providing the age of superannuation of the employees as 58 have been framed by the Registrar in exercise of his power u/s 33-A of the Act. 7. Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act puts an embargo on the employer who proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matters specified in the Fourth Schedule, not to do so without giving the workman likely to be affected by such change a notice in the prescribed manner of the nature of the change proposed to be effected, or within 21 days of giving such notice. The proviso to Section 9A stipulates that where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. The proviso to Section 9A stipulates that where the workmen likely to be affected by the change are persons to whom the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. Revised Leave Rules, Civil Service Regulations, Civilians in Defence Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules for the Indian Railway Establishment Code or any other rules or regulations that may be notified in this behalf by the appropriate Government in the Official Gazette, apply, then no notice is required for effecting any such change. The legislative intent is clear that it an employee is covered by a set of service rules as stipulated undar Proviso (b) to Section 9A, then for changing any conditions of servics, no notice is required as contained in the main part of Section 9A. The Cadra Rules are meant for governing the service conditions of the employees of the co-operative societies. The object of Section 9A is that conditions of service in force when a workman enters service should not be changed to his prejudice. But the prohibition u/s 9A does not apply to regulations which were brought into force for the first time. (See. C. L. Kannan v. The Employees, State Insurance Corporation and Anr., AIR 1968 Madras 280). The Cadre Rules framed by the Registrar in exercise of power u/s 33-A of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act were framed for the first time providing the conditions of service including the age of superannuation. For bringing into effect such rules for the first time laying down the conditions of service including the age of superannuation, the prohibition u/s 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application, as has been held by the Madras High Court in the aforesaid case. 8. The employer of the petitioner is the Cadre Committee constituted under Rules 6 and 7 of the Cadre Rules. One of the functions of the Cadre Committee is to select and recruit suitable persons to man different posts as key personnel and to appoint them. "Key Personnel" means the persons under the common cadre of Key Personnel of LAMPS, Cadre Parsonal means the Managing Director Accountant and Branch Manager of the LAMPS When the petitioner joined as the Branch Managar of the LAMPS he was deemed to have been appointed afresh by the Cadre Committee restrospectively under the C3dre Rules. "Key Personnel" means the persons under the common cadre of Key Personnel of LAMPS, Cadre Parsonal means the Managing Director Accountant and Branch Manager of the LAMPS When the petitioner joined as the Branch Managar of the LAMPS he was deemed to have been appointed afresh by the Cadre Committee restrospectively under the C3dre Rules. He having accepted the appointment, came to be governed by the Cadre Rules. The earlier order of 1933 (Annaxure-I) is therefore, deemed to have been superseded by the Cadre Rules in respect of the provision as to the age of superannuation which is a condition of service. 9. The change contemplated by Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is one which the employer has a discretion to make or not to make. But if the employer is compelled to give effect to any statutory rule or order which has itself brought about the change in the terms of employment, such a change would not corns within the ambit of Section 9A. In this case the employer of the petitioner is not the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies but a Cade Committee which functions under the control of the Central Co-operative Bank, The words used in Section 9A that no employer, who proposes to effect the change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule shall effect such change without giving the prescribed notice or without waiting for the prescribed period after such notice, imply that the change in the conditions of service is proposed by the employer. The provision therein is wholly inappropriate for application to those cases where the change is not brought about by the employer but is brought about by the statutory rules not made by the employer. The Cadre Rules made by the Registrar u/s 33-a of the Act which brought about the change in the order of 1993 with regard to the condition of employment, therefore, do not violate Section 9A of the S.D. Act inasmuch as it is not a change brought about by the employer. This view finds support from the dscision in Hemanta Kumar Gupta v. The President, District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd. Ambikapore and othsrs, 1932 Lab IC 1435 of Madiya Pradesh High Court. This view finds support from the dscision in Hemanta Kumar Gupta v. The President, District Co-operative Central Bank, Ltd. Ambikapore and othsrs, 1932 Lab IC 1435 of Madiya Pradesh High Court. Section 55 of the M P. Co-operative Societies Act confers the same power on the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies of the M.P. as that of Section 33-A of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. In that case also a change in service condition was brought about by framing the M.P. Co-operative Central Bank Employees Service (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1977, by the Registrar in exercise of the powers u/s 65 of the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act The employees appointed by the M. P. Co-operative Central Bank challenged the same on the ground that it contravened Section 9A of the I. D. Act The M.P. High Court negatived the contention and held the rules to be valid. 10. Than again. Section 9A of the Industrial Disoutes Act is attracted when the employer proposes to effect any change in the conditions of service applicable to any workman in respect of any matter specified in the Fourth Schedule. The Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act contains eleven items and 'superannuation of an employee" is not covered by any of the eleven items. If the provisions of the Cadre Rules providing for an age of superannuation are not covered by any of the items contained in the Fourth Schedule of the Industrial Disputes Act, then Section 9A cannot be attracted at all and, therefore, the question of following the procedure contained in Section 9A does not arise. In this view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner that the Cadre Rules are bad, the same having been enacted without following the procedure contained in Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, is devoid of any force. 11. Thus Rule 25 of the Cadre Rules being found to be valid, in our opinion, the contention of the petitioner that the order of retire- ment of the petitioner was passed illegally is not sustainable. 12. No other contention was raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing. 13. For the reasons stated above, we' hold that there is no merit in this p3tition and the same is accordingly dismissed. But there would be no order as to costs. G.B. Pattnaik, J. I agree. 12. No other contention was raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner in course of hearing. 13. For the reasons stated above, we' hold that there is no merit in this p3tition and the same is accordingly dismissed. But there would be no order as to costs. G.B. Pattnaik, J. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed