D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a Co-operative Bank governed by the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1962. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the award of the Labour court. Jabalpur dated 13. 3. 1995 (Annexure P-18 ). whereby the respondent employee has been directed to be reinstated in service with back wages has been assailed. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the parties do not dispute the legal position that the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sagarmal v. Disti. Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. and another, (1997) 9 SCC 354 , has held that in service dispute of a co-operative society resort to the provisions of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act is incompetent. The forum for adjudication of service dispute of an employee of Co-operative Society is the appropriate co-operative Court under Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. The award passed by the Labour Court, therefore, under the provisions of section 10 of the I. D. Act has to be quashed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-employee submits that resort to the remedy under the I. D. Act to the Labour Court was made on the basis of the existing law as laid down by several decisions of this Court. The law has been declared differently by the Supreme Court in the case of Sagarmal (supra ). During pendency of the petition in this Court, the petitioner as employer was required to either reinstate the employee or to pay him last wages drawn under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act. That relief was never given to the respondent-employee. It is submitted that even if this Court relegates the respondent-employee to the remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act. this Court should direct the petitioner to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the I. D. Act. ( 4 ) THE above alternative prayer made on behalf of the respondent-employee cannot be given effect to completely. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sagarmal (supra) the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, its award is nullity in taw and no relief even, of an interim nature can flow infavour of the employee under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sagarmal (supra) the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in the matter, its award is nullity in taw and no relief even, of an interim nature can flow infavour of the employee under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act. The other alternative prayer, however, deserves to be accepted that the petitioner must get on opportunity to approach the statutory forum now held available to him. ( 5 ) CONSEQUENTLY, this petition is allowed. The impugned award of the labour Court dated 13. 3. 1995 (Annexure P-18) is hereby quashed on the sale ground of want of jurisdiction of the Court. The respondent-employee is. however, granted three months time from the date of communication of the order to him to raise a service dispose in the matter before the appropriate co- operative Court under Section 55 (1) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act. and if such a dispute is raised by the employee within the time fixed above, the competent authority or Court shall entertain the dispute and decide the same on merits with expedition and without allowing setting up of any pleas of limitation. Petition allowed. .