( 1 ) FOR quashing the award dated 22. 9. 1990 passedd by the Labour court, Ghaziabad, this writ petition was filed by the employer. ( 2 ) HEARD Mr. Rakesh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. Shyam Narain, learned counsel for the respondent workman. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions over and above raising an objection that the respondent no. 3 employee herein being employed by a Co-operative Society, no proceeding was maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore reference itself was bad. The other two contentions raised on behalf of the employer petiotioner were that the proceeding before labour court was barred by the principle of resjudicata and that after acquittal of employee concerned in the criminal proceeding, the disciplinary proceeding could be very well held in respect of his conduct and the findings of the labour court in that respect is not tenable. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent workman contended that there is no bar in raising an industrial dispute and principle of resjudicata can not be aapplied in a proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act on the Basis of decision in statutory appeal. It has been further contended in this regard that no plea of resjudicata having been raised in the writ petition itself, such a question can not be raised at the time of hearing as the respondent was deprived of making out his case in the counter affidavit. ( 5 ) WITH regard to other points raised by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the scope of criminal proceeding and a disciplinary may be different but a categorical finding in criminal proceeding on facts will remain binding and no disciplinary proceeding can be held in respect of the same. As regards availability of forum under the Industrial Disputes Act an employee of co-operative society, it is contended that in respect of such disputes, the forum under Industrial Disputes Act is very much available in view of provision of law as contained in relevant regulation and the bar intended to be enforced by section 135 of the u. P. Co-operative Societies Act is non existent as the said section admittedly has not been enforced. ( 6 ) AFTER considering the aforesaid contentions as also the facts available on record and the law referred to by the respective parties, I find that the relief provided by appeal in the concerned Regulation does not exclude the relief available under the labour law. It appears that reference under the Industrial Disputes Act can be made as, admittedly, a dispute was existing with regard to termination of service of workmen concerned and no law was shown either in the statute or settled by any court of law which debars a workman in such circumstances from seeking relief under the Industrial Disputes act. ( 7 ) WITH regard to criminal proceeding, I find that in the impugned award it has been recorded that the representative of the employer admitted that the charges in the criminal proceeding and those in the disciplinary proceedings are the same and therefore a finding was recorded that in such circumstances, the disciplinary proceedings should not have been held in respect of same charges. It is true that the scope of disciplinary proceeding is ordinarily different from the scope of criminal proceeding. But, when the charges are identical and a finding has been arrived as regards facts involved nad on that basis the workman concerned had been honourably acquitted, there is no reason for continuing the disciplinary proceeding on the same charges when misconduct can be proved only on contrary findings of facts. On behalf of the employer nothing has been shown here that there is any difference in the nature of charges involved in two proceedings. Therefore the findings of labour court in respect of workman concerned on this issue can not be interfered with. ( 8 ) LAW has been referred to in respect of effect of decision of criminal proceeding. In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. V. K. Meena reported in (1996) 6 SCC 417 the law was considered generally. No finding has been recorded therein showing that a finding of criminal court on facts to be totally remaining out of consideration while considering a disciplinary proceeding on the same charges. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T. Venkataramanappa reported in (1996) 6 SCC 455 also the apex court considered the difference in standard of proof in criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding. The same also does not help in deciding the present question involved. In the case of State of Karnataka Vs. T. Venkataramanappa reported in (1996) 6 SCC 455 also the apex court considered the difference in standard of proof in criminal proceeding and a departmental proceeding. The same also does not help in deciding the present question involved. The facts considered therein was with regard to acquittal in a criminal proceeding for bigamy and it has been held that such acquittal is not a bar to a departmental proceeding for contracting second marriage without permission of Government. ( 9 ) REFERENCE has been made to the case of Depot Manager A. P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya reported in A. I. R. 1997 S. C. 2232 wherein law has been considered for deciding simultaneous continuation of a criminal proceeding and a departmental enquiry and in what circumstances such departmental proceeding is to be stayed. The said question not being involved herein, the said law does not help either of the parties. In the case of state Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K. S. Gandhi reported in 1991 (2) SCC 716 consideration was of standard of proof in a departmental proceeding and therefore it does not help in either way in the present case. With regard to the case of Nelson motis Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC 1981 the observations are general in nature. An earlier three member Bench in the case of Corporation of Bagpur City Vs. Ramchandra reported in 1981 (2) SCC 714 considered the particular aspect and held that "normally where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges it would not be expedient to continue a departmental enquiry on the very same charges" ( 10 ) WITH regard to contention that forum under the Industrial dispute act is not available for an employee of a co-operative society, I find that for settlement of dispute forum has been provided in the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. But, in the said provision though a non-obstante clause has been provided but the dispute which can be referred for arbitration under the said provision specially excludes a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society. But, in the said provision though a non-obstante clause has been provided but the dispute which can be referred for arbitration under the said provision specially excludes a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society. ( 11 ) ON behalf of employer it has been contended that though notification had not been made in view of section 135 of the Act but the intention of the Legislature is clear from the said section which is as follows. "135. Certain Acts not to apply to co-operative societies. The provisions contained in the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947), and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act (U. P. Act XVIII of 1947), shall not apply to Co-operative societies. " ( 12 ) DECISION has been arrived by learned single Judge in the case of vikramaditya Pandey Vs. Industrial Tribunal reported in 1997 (75)FLR 844 holding that in view of provision of section 135 (although not notified making it enforced) and of Regulation 103 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 the said labour laws are not applicable to co-operative employees. The law so decided has been followed in the case of Arvind Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Utter Pradesh reported in the case of 1998 (78) FLR 440. ( 13 ) THE aforesaid Regulation 103 of the Regulation of 1975 is as follows. "103. The provisions of these regulations to the extent of their inconsistency with any of the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U. P. Dookan Aur vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmwn compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force, if applicable to any co-operative society or class of co-operative societies, shall be deemed to be inoperative. " ( 14 ) THE above Regulation has been iterpreted in the case of vikramaditya Pandey (supra) holding that "if there is any inconsistency between the regulation and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or any other labour law for the time being in force, the present regulation shall be applicable and the other laws shall be deemed to be inoperative" ( 15 ) BUT the same Regulation 103 was considered earlier in the case of Jai Kishun Vs. U. P. D Co-operative Bank Limited reported in 1989 (2) UPLBEC 144 wherein Division Bench of this court held that the said Regulation provides that provision of these Regulations to the extent of their inconsistency with any other provision of aforesaid labour law shall be deemed to be inoperative. ( 16 ) THE Division Bench also took into consideration that tough U. P. Industrial Disputes act has not been specifically mentioned in the said Regulation 103 but as the said staute is undoubtedly a labour law for the time being in force, the Regulation will not be applicable. In respect of statute relating to co-operative society prevailing in the concerned, applicability of provision of Industrial Disputes Act was considered in the case of Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank ltd. Vs. P. R. Mankad reported in AIR 1979 SC 1203 and the case of r. C. Tiwari Vs. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation reported in AIR 1997 SC 2652 which indicate that in the facts of the present case, the labour law becomes applicable and not the forum provided under the Co-operative Societies law. ( 17 ) WITH regard to section 135 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act it is an admitted position that the said section has not been yet enforced by a notification and effect thereof has been considered in various case decided by this court. Such findings holding that the said section having not been enforced, there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the forum provided by the U. P. Industrial Disputes act, had been arrived at in the case of Mauranipur Kisan Sahakari sewa Samiti Vs. State of U. P. reported in 1988 UPLBEC 555 and the case of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Vs. Presiding Officer reported in 1993 (67) FLR 87 . ( 18 ) IN this connection it may also be noticed that the co-operative society had been held to be Industry within the meaning of industrial law by the seven member Constitution Bench of apex court it case of bangalore Water Supply Vs. R. Rajappa reported in A. I. R. 1978 SC 548. ( 18 ) IN this connection it may also be noticed that the co-operative society had been held to be Industry within the meaning of industrial law by the seven member Constitution Bench of apex court it case of bangalore Water Supply Vs. R. Rajappa reported in A. I. R. 1978 SC 548. ( 19 ) IN view of aforesaid position in law and in particular decision of division Bench of this court interpreting Regulation 103 also and being fully in respectful agreement with the said finding, I am of the opinion that the judgements in support of the contentions of the employer can not be applied and law which is required to be followed is that decided by the Division Bench in the case of Jai kishun (supra) holding that for an employee of a Co-operative society not the forum provided by Regulation but the forum provided by Regulation but the forum provided by labour law prevailing is to be availed of. ( 20 ) IN view of aforesaid findings, no interference can be made with impugned award and the writ petition is hereby dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .