D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) BY the Court This petition was filed in the year 1987 by the C. O. D. Employees Co-operative Society. Jabalpur, registered under and regulated by the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The order challenged in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is passed by the Labour court, Jabalpur on 9. 6. 1987 whereby it was directed that the employees of the Co- operative society (respondents Nos. 3 to 9) shall be paid salary in the pay scales as approved by the Deputy Registrar, Co- operative Societies, in his' order dated 16. 12. 1985. ( 2 ) THE main ground in this petition is that the Labour Court, Jabalpur had absolutely no jurisdiction or authority to entertain the dispute of scale of pay of the employees of the Co-operative Society, The application made by the employees was under the provisions of Payment of Wages Act. The Labour court entertained the application and converted the same as one under section 33-C (2) of the I. D. Act and granted relief claimed by the employees as mentioned above. ( 3 ) ON the date of admission of this petition te. 25. 9. 1987, the Court stayed the operation of the impugned order of the Labour Court. Subsequently, on 5. 10. 1987, the said order of stay was modified by directing the petitioner- society to pay future wages from 1. 7. 1987 to the respondents in terms of the order of the Registrar dated 16. 12. 1985. The above bye-parte order made by the Court has continued to remain in force all these years. A Full Bench of this Court in Rashtriya Khadan Mazdoor Sahkori Samiti Ltd. v. Presiding officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 1975 MPLJ 583 had taken a view that if a co-operative society answers the description of being an Industry as defined in the Indastrial Disputes Act, and the employees answer the description of 'workmen' as defined therein, parties will have an option to either of the remedies under the industrial law or under the provisions of m. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The said decision was followed by a Division bench of this Court in Sahakari Vipnan (Marketing) Sanstha Maryadit v. Labour Court, Indore, 1977 MPLJ 31. The said decision was followed by a Division bench of this Court in Sahakari Vipnan (Marketing) Sanstha Maryadit v. Labour Court, Indore, 1977 MPLJ 31. ( 4 ) THE Full Bench judgment of this Court has not received approval in the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Ttwari v. M. P. Co-operative Marketing Federation and others, 1997 (5) SCC 125 and Sagarmal v. Distt Sahkari Kendriya Bank Ltd. , Mandsaur and another, Civil Appeal No. 3629 of 1996 decided on 1. 10. 1996. In the case of R. C. Tiwari (supra), it has been held that where a service dispute can be entertained under the provision of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, the application of the provision of Section 10 of the I. D. Act stand excluded. ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid decision which is binding on this Court, it has to be held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute. Since the Labour Court at the relevant time decided the dispute on the state of law existing then, this Court allows the petition and quashes the impugned order dated 9. 6. 1987 (Document No. 4) passed by the Labour court, but with liberty to the parties to raise the same service dispute under section 55 or Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act before the appropriate Co-operative Court. If such a dispute is raised by the parties within three months from the date of this order, the appropriate authority may entertain the dispute without setting up any bar or limitation. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, and in view of the change in state of law because of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to the service conditions and scale of pay of the employees of the society for a period of three months or till filing of the dispute by any of the parties before the Labour Court on the subject matter and passing of further orders by the appropriate Co-operative Court, whichever is earlier. There shall be no order as to costs of this petition. Order accordingly. .