JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner a Co-operative Banking Society has filed this petition challenging an Order passed by the Authority under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, 1958(for short 'the Act' hereinafter). By the impugned Order, the Authority rejected the preliminary objection of the petitioner - Bank that it was exempted from the operation of the Act and reinstated with back wages, respondent Nos. 2 to 11 in service setting aside the order of termination of their services holding them to be illegal for non-compliance with the provision of notice under Section 28-A of the Act. 2. It is contended by the petitioner - Bank that under Section 3(1) (a) of the Act offices of or under the Central or any State Government or local authorities are exempted from operation of the Act and the petitioner - Bank is exemt from the operation because it is an office under the State Government. It was further contended that the respondent Nos. 2 to 11 are not the employees of the petitioner - Bank and were working on contract basis engaged on a work of intermittent nature. 3. Taking up the preliminary objection first, it can be seen that before the Authority under the Act, the objection was raised in a slightly different manner. It appears that the contention before the Authority was that the petitioner being a 'local authority' was exempt under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The Authority has rightly held that the petitioner - Bank is not a local authority. 4. It appears that the contention before the Authority was that the petitioner being a 'local authority' was exempt under Section 3(1)(a) of the Act. The Authority has rightly held that the petitioner - Bank is not a local authority. 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Valjibhai v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1890 , wherein it has been held that the State Transport Corporation is not a 'local authority' within the meaning of Section 3 (31) of the General Clauses Act, 1987 as also the decision of the Supreme Court in Diamond Sugar Mills v. State of U.P., AIR 1961 SC 652 wherein the phase 'local area' has been held to have a technical meaning of an area administered by a local body like a municipality, a district board, a union board, a panchayat or the like, it has to be held that a Co-operative Bank cannot be said to be a 'local authority' as it is not an authority legally entitled to control or manage municipal or local funds as it does not administer any area like a municipal area, a district or a panchayat area. 5. The petitioner - Bank it seems has therefore, raised a preliminary objection before this Court in a slightly different manner. The objection now is that the Co-operative Bank is under overall control of the State Government and therefore, it is an office of or under the State Government and is therefore, exempt from the operation of the Act. This objection also deserves to be rejected out-right. A Co-operative Bank has a separate entity from the Government. It is registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and is a corporate body registered under that Act. If such a body is shown to be an instrumentality of the State by virtue of the overall control being vested in the State Government, it would fall within the definition of 'State' under Art. 12 of the Constitution. However, such a body registered under the statute cannot be said to be a creation of the statute or a part of the State. A distinction has to be drawn between a body created by statute and a body registered under the statute. However, this Court is not concerned in this case as to whether the petitioner - Bank is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. A distinction has to be drawn between a body created by statute and a body registered under the statute. However, this Court is not concerned in this case as to whether the petitioner - Bank is a 'State' within the meaning of Art. 12 of the Constitution of India. Since the argument is based on the basis of all pervasive control to show that the petitioner - Bank is an office of or under the State Government, it will have to be examined as to whether the petitioner - Bank can be said to be an office of or under the State Government because of the alleged pervasive control said to be held by the State Government over it. 6. The word 'office' has acquired a meaning as a place where the employees of the owner of the office work for him. The Petitioner - Bank to be an office of the State Government, it will have to be shown that those who worked in the petitioner - Bank are employed by the State Government. A situation cannot be countenanced where a place where employees of one person worked can be called office of someone else. As admittedly, the employees of the petitioner - Bank are not the employees of the State Government, it is futile to argue that the place of the work of the petitioner - Bank is an office of the State Government. 7. As regards the office of the petitioner - Bank being the office 'under' the State Government, there is no material on record to conclude that it is so. The petitioner - Bank is not directly under the State Government in the sense that its employees are directly under the State Government. Being a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, the petitioner - Bank is subject to the general power of superintendence over the Co-operative Societies which the State Government has under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act. Exercise of such power of control and supervision cannot render the Co-operative Societies as departments of the Government and their offices cannot be said to be offices under the State Government. If the Government exercises all pervasive control over the Co-operative Society, it can be said that such Co-operative Society was under the control of the Government but that would not make the office of such society 'under' the State Government. If the Government exercises all pervasive control over the Co-operative Society, it can be said that such Co-operative Society was under the control of the Government but that would not make the office of such society 'under' the State Government. The Government may control and influence the working of the Co-operative Bank through its nominees on the Board of Directors or through conditions of financing of the society. The Co-operative Bank may withstand such influences or refuse to comply if it is prepared to face the consequences under the Co-operative Societies Act. But nevertheless, the employees of the Co-operative Bank continue to be its own employees and the Government has no direct control over them. It cannot be said therefore, that the offices of Co-operative Societies are 'under' the State Government. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the office of the petitioner - Bank not being an office of or under the State Government or the Central Government or an office under a local authority, is not exempt from the operation of the Act by virtue of Section 3(1) (a) of the Act and the authority under the Act has rightly held so in the impugned order. 9. There is no force in the contention that the authority has erred in reinstating respondent Nos. 2 to 11 as they were engaged on contract for a casual and intermittent work. These are essentially questions of fact and are not open to challenge generally in writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, the nature of work admittedly being clerical accounting book-keeping, ledger - keeping etc. it is difficult to accept that a banking establishment could engage such employees on contract and their employment could be termed as casual or intermittent. As regards back wages, suffice it to say that in absence of some specific material put by the employer showing that respondent Nos. 2 to 11 were gainfully employed somewhere else, the authority had no alternative but to award back wages. If the Bank finds that a fraud has been committed by any employee in claiming and receiving back wages while such employee actually employed elsewhere, that can be brought to the notice of the authority which may pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.In the result, the petition fails and it is dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.Petition rejected. *******