A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of the connected Writ Petition No. 1802 of 2002 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, khargone v. Baliram S/o Nandram Tailor and another, Writ Petition No. 1803 of 2002, Jila sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Rajaram S/o Gangaram Rathore and another, Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2002 Jila sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Ratanlal S/o Mukundram Shrivas and another, Writ Petition No. 1811 of 2002 Jila sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone v. Ramcharan S/o Nandu Singh Yadav and another, and Writ Petition No. 1812 of 2002 jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, khargone v. Shivkaran S/o Bhimaji Jadhav and another. As common questions of law and facts are involved in these petitions, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. ( 2 ) THE respondents are the employees of the petitioner Bank. Their wages were reduced in May, 1984 and as per the respondents it was a case of illegal deduction of wages. All the respondents filed separate applications under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for brevity "the Act of 1947") before the presiding Officer, Labour Court, Khandwa. By a common order dated July 4, 2002 the Labour court, Khandwa allowed their applications, and set aside the order of reduction of wages and directed for the payment thereof. Before the Labour Court the petitioner Bank had taken an objection that the Labour Court is not having any jurisdiction in the matter and the respondents may refer the matter to the co-operative Courts under Section 55 (2) and under Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1960 (far brevity "the Act of 1960") but the learned Labour Court placing reliance on a Full Bench decision of this High court in the case of Rashtriya Khandan mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd. , Durg v. Presiding Officer, Central Government industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, jabalpur and others 1975 JLJ 732 , held that the co-operative Courts as well as the Labour court both are having concurrent jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, thus held that the applications under Section 33-C (2) is maintainable before the Labour Court and allowed their applications and passed the award, against which petitioner Bank has filed these petitions under Article 227 of the constitution of India challenging the aforesaid award. ( 3 ) IN view of the latest decisions of the supreme Court as well as of this High Court this controversy appears to have been settled. The Courts now have consistently held that when the dispute between Co-operative Society and its employee falls within the purview of the provisions of Sections 55 (2) and 64 of the Act of 1960, the same should be decided by a competent Officer under the Act of 1960 and labour Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide such disputes. In this connection, particularly the decision in the case of sagarmal v. District Sahakari Kendriya Bank ltd. Mandsaur and another 1997 (9) SCC 354 : 1998-III-LLJ (Suppl)-157 in which it has been held that there can be no doubt that the provisions of the Central Act; viz. , the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not apply to the employees of the Respondents Co-operative bank registered under State Act, and, therefore, the only question which could arise was of the availability of the remedy either under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 or under the M. P. Industrial Relations act, 1960 and in this case the Supreme Court has also ignored the Full Bench decision of this high Court in the case of Rashtriya Khandan mazdoor Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Durg (supra ). Thereafter in the case of R. C. Tiwari v. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others 1997 (5) SCC 125 : 1997-II-LLJ-236, the Supreme Court has finally resolved the controversy and has held as under at p. 238 of LLJ:"3. . . . . . . Section 55 of the Societies Act gives power to the Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to the employees in the society of a class of societies including the terms and condition of employment of the employees. When a dispute relates to the terms of employment, working conditions disciplinary action taken by a society, or arises between a society and its employees, the Registrar or any officer appointed by him, not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. As regards power under Section 64, the language is very wide, viz. As regards power under Section 64, the language is very wide, viz. , "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force any dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a society or the liquidation of a society shall be referred to the Registry by any of the parties to the dispute. " Therefore, the dispute relating to the management or business of the society is very comprehensive as repeatedly held by this court. As a consequence, special procedure has been provided under this Act. Necessarily, reference under section 10 of the Societies Act stands excluded. The judgment of this Court arising under Andhra pradesh Act has no application to the facts for the reason that under that Act the dispute did not cover the dismissal of the servants of the society for which the Act therein was amended. " ( 4 ) IN the case of C. O. D. employees co-operative Society, Jabalpur v. Presiding officer, Labour Court, 1999 1 MPLJ 352 hon'ble DHARMADHIKARI, J. (as he then was)after considering the aforesaid decision of the supreme Court had held that under M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, service disputes between the Society and its employees are maintainable under the Act of 1960 and the jurisdiction under Section 10 of the Industrial disputes Act stands excluded and it was further held that the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Rashtriya Khandan Mazdoor sahakari Samiti Ltd. (supra) has not received approval of the Supreme Court in the case of sagarmal (supra) as well as in the case of R. C. Tiwari (supra) in which it has been held that the service dispute can be entertained under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act and the application of provision of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act stand excluded. In the case of Vindhyachal Super Thermal power Project, Sidhi v. Presiding Officer, labour Court, Sidhi and another 1998 (2)mplj 645 the learned single Judge of this High court again has clearly held that the Dispute between the Society and its employee relating to payment of wages and difference of wages is a dispute in relation to the terms of employment and working conditions of employment in the Society and, therefore, the same is referable to the Co-operative Courts under the Act of 1960. It has been held that the jurisdiction under Section 55 of the co-operative Act is very comprehensive which includes dispute regarding terms of employment, work conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society and, therefore, this court has held that the same cannot be referred to the Labour Court under the Industrial disputes Act. ( 5 ) THE Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Chief Municipal Officer, Banda v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another 1999 RN 415 has also clearly held that in view of the decision taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sagarmal (supra) and R. C. Tiwari (supra) the remedy for the employees of the co-operative Societies is available under section 64 of the Act of 1960 itself and the other remedy for the employees of Co-operative societies is barred by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1960. In another Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Gwahor Dugdh sangh Sahakari Maryadit, Gwalior v. Narendra Pal Singh 2003 (2) MPJR 169 again held that dispute relating to terms and conditions of employment of a society raised by employee may be decided under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 also, and in another case gramin Vidyut Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, ramnagar v. Devideen Patel 2003 (3) MPJR 216 in which the learned single Judge of this court has up-held the same view and placing reliance on the decision in the case of R. C. Tiwari (supra) has held that the reference under industrial Disputes Act is incompetent. ( 6 ) THUS, as has been held by Hon'ble dharmadhikari, J. (as he then was) in case of c. O. D. Employee Co-operative Society, jabalpur (supra) that the Full Bench decision in the case of Rashtriya Khandan Mazdoor sahakari Samiti Ltd. (supra) stand excluded and the view has not been accepted by the Apex court, therefore, after the decisions in the case of Sagarmal (supra) and R. C. Tiwari (supra)the entire legal position has been changed and in view of this dictum by the Supreme Court that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 being Central Act did not apply to the employees of the Co-operative Bank under the special provisions of State Act of 1960. Therefore, now it is clear that after the aforesaid decisions, the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act are not applicable to the employees of the co-operative societies registered under the Act of 1960. ( 7 ) NOW the question is whether in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Sagarmal (supra) and R. C. Tiwari (supra) whether only the cases which are being referred to the Labour Court on reference shall stand excluded from the jurisdiction of the labour Court or the jurisdiction of the Labour court in all other matters is excluded. The supreme Court has interpreted the provisions of Section 55 and the provisions of Section 64 of the Act of 1960. Under Section 55 the cases relating to condition of employment of the employees, terms of employment, working conditions, disciplinary action by a society can be referred to the Registrar and it has been further interpreted that the language of Section 64 is very wide which included the dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Society. The term dispute relating to the management or business of the society is very comprehensive and includes all kinds of disputes relating to the management of the society. The case of reduction of wages also falls within the meaning of terms of employment and the work management. As per the definition, as stated in LAW LEXICON, the term "management" has been defined as under:"management:- Management is defined as government, control, superintendence, physical or manual handling or guidance, the act of managing by direction or regulation, or administration; as the management of a family, or of a household, or of servants, or of great enterprises, or of great affairs. "as per the definition, as stated in WEBSTER's encyclopaedic UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY, the term "management" has been defined as under"management:- regulation, administration, superintendence, care, charge, conduct, guidance, treatment. "the term "employment" is also very wide and has been defined as under:"employment: -The other matters relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation. These are all matters relating to employment and they are and must be deemed to be included in the expression "matters relating to employment" in Article 16 (1 ). These are all matters relating to employment and they are and must be deemed to be included in the expression "matters relating to employment" in Article 16 (1 ). One of the meanings of the word "employment" as given in WEBSTER's dictionary is occupation, business that which engages the head or hands of agricultural employment or mechanical employment. This clearly suggests that the word "employment" refers to a condition in which a man is kept occupied in executing any work. In other words, it means not only an appointment to any office for the first time but also the continuity of that appointment. Sukhnandan Thakur v. State of Bihar AIR 1957 Pat. 617 . The expression "employment" is not coterminous with "business", and it seems that in a particular business there may be several classes or categories of employment. The word "employment" used in the entry (Entry No. 8, Part I, Schedule A to the Minimum wages Act, 1948) was used in its most general sense of "the action of employing or the state of being employed" and not with reference to any particular trade, business or occupation. Madhya Pradesh Mineral industry Association, Nagpur v. Regional labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur 1958-I-LLJ-751. The matters relating to employment must include all matters in relation to employment both prior and subsequent, to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment. S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427 at p. 1431. " ( 8 ) THUS, the case of reduction of wages comes within the purview of Section 55 of the act of 1960 and the jurisdiction of the other courts including the Labour Court under the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 under Section 33-C (2) is also to be held as barred. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act is barred as has been held by the Supreme Court in the cases of Sagarmal (supra) and R. C. Tiwari (supra ). Therefore, as has consistently been held by the apex Court and by this Court, the case of rashtriya Khandan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti ltd. Therefore, as has consistently been held by the apex Court and by this Court, the case of rashtriya Khandan Mazdoor Sahakari Samiti ltd. (supra) gets excluded and the same is not applicable and the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the disputes either under section 10 on reference or under Section 33-C (2) which are referable to the Registrar under section 55 and Section 64 of the Act of 1960. Therefore, it is held that the order under challenge in this petition is without jurisdiction and cannot be allowed to stand. ( 9 ) SINCE the matter remained pending before the Labour Court and in this High Court for long time and the respondents employees were agitating their grievances and claim bona fidely, all the aforesaid petitions are disposed of with the consent of the parties that the each respondents shall have liberty to file a fresh dispute within 45 days from today before the registrar or the Deputy Registrar who is having jurisdiction under the Act of 1960 to decide the dispute of the Co-operative Bank employees. If any dispute is filed within 45 days from the date of this order, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and the learned counsel for the petitioner undertake not to raise any question of limitation before the co-operative Courts. It is further directed to the Authority concerned to decide the disputes so raised by the respondents employee within a period of six months positively without any further delay in accordance with law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. .