ARUN TANDON, J. Zila Sahkari Federation Ltd. Bulandshahr has filed this present writ petition against the award of the Labour Court dated 1-11-1988 in Adjudication Case No. 190 of 1985 under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, holding therein that the termination of the services of the workman, Atul Chand Tyagi vide order dated 23-11-1984 tantamount to retrenchment, the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act have not been followed, retrenchment was bad and as such workman was entitled to reinstate with full back wages alongwith continuity of services and all other benefits. 2. I have heard Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent workman and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1. 3. The foremost ground for challenging the award of the Labour Court as contended on behalf of the petitioner is that the dispute as referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, was not maintainable. The Co-operative Societies Act provides for statutory terms and conditions for employment of employees including disciplinary action, it is a special act, therefore, excludes the provisions of General Act namely, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and Regulations framed there under, where a complete Code in itself thereby excludes the reference of dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act by implication. In support of the said contention. The petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court reported in 2003 (2) LBESR 640 (All) : 2003 ESC (Alld.) V-2, 1952; M/s. Kishan Seva Saharkari Samiti Ltd. Kushi Nagar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. at Gorakhpur and others, 2003 (1) LBESR 1115 (All) : 2003 (97) FLR 851, M/s. Handloom and Textile Co-operative Societies, Kanpur v. Mithlesh Kumar Tiwari and another as well the judgment of this Court reported in 1999, FLR V-82, 260 Nagar Palika, Dehradun & another v. The State of U. P. and another. The aforesaid three judgments of the Honble Single Judges of this Court have placed reliance upon two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1997, SCC V-5, 125, R. C. Tiwari v. M. P. State Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors and 1997, FLR V. 76, 237; Himanshu Kr. Vidayarthi v. The State of Bihar. The aforesaid three judgments of the Honble Single Judges of this Court have placed reliance upon two judgments of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1997, SCC V-5, 125, R. C. Tiwari v. M. P. State Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & Ors and 1997, FLR V. 76, 237; Himanshu Kr. Vidayarthi v. The State of Bihar. It is stated on behalf of the respondent workman that the three judgments of this Court referred to above in the cases of Kisan Seva Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Handloom and Textile Co-operative Society and Nagar Palika, Dehradun (supra) have not been notice of the earlier judgments of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1203 , The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P. R. Mankad and another and AIR 1984, SC 286, Jai Bhagwan v. Management of the Ambala Central Co- operative Bank Ltd. and another, as well as the Division Bench, judgment of this Court reported in 2000 (3) LBESR 721 (All) : 1997 FLR V-75 370, M/s. Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Basti v. The Presiding Officer, Shram Nayayalaya, Gorakhpur and others. The provisions of Section 6r (2) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act have also not been noticed in the three judgments. Consequently, the said three judgments of the Honble Single Judges of this Court do not lay down the correct legal position, this Court is bound by the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court as well as the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court wherein it has been held that the remedy made available to the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act is statutory remedy which can only be excluded by express provisions of a statute. There is no basis to deny to the workman, the statute recognized mode of redress of his grievance. 4. Thus, the issue, is whether, a dispute raised by the workman, who was an employee of a Co-operative Society which is duly incorporated under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and answered the descriptions of an industry within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is legally maintainable before the labour Court or else the jurisdiction of the Labour Court stands excluded in view of the statutory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and Regulations of services framed thereunder. 5. 5. The statutory provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, which have bearing on the controversy reads as follows: "section 70 - Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises: (a) among members, past members and person claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or (b) between a member, past member or any person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, and the society, its committee management or any officer, agent or employee of the society, including any past officer, agent, or deceased employee of the society; or (c) between the society or its committee any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between a co-operative society and any other co-operative society or societies; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of any such dispute: (2) For the the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be included in dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely (a) claims for amounts due when a demand for payment is and is either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety and amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) all matter relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of officer-bearers. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution. Management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. Section 122. Authority to control employees of co-operative societies.- (1) The State Government may constitute an authority or authorities, in such manner as may be prescribed, for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of co-operative societies, or a class of co-operative societies, and may require such authority or authorities to frame regulations regarding recruitment, emoluments, terns and conditions of service including disciplinary control of such employees and, subject to the provisions contained in Section 70, settlement of disputes between an employer of a co- operative society and the society. Section 128. Registrars power to annul resolution of a co-operative society or cancel order passed by an officer of a co-operative society in certain cases.- (i) annul any resolution passed by the Committee of Management or the general body of any co-operative society; or (ii) cancel any order passed by an officer of a co-operative society, if he is of the opinion that the resolution or the order, as the case may be, is not covered by the objects of the society, or is in contravention of the provisions of this Act, the rules or the bye-laws of the society, whereupon every such resolution or order shall become void and inoperative and be deleted from the records of the society: [provided that the Registrar shall, before making any order, require the Committee of Management, general body of officer of the co-operative society or reconsider the resolution, or as the case may be, the order, within such period as he may fix but which shall not be less than fifteen days, and if he deems fit may stay the operation of that resolution or the order during such period. Section 135. Certain Acts not to apply to Co-operative societies.-The provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) and he U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act XVIII of 1947), shall not apply to co-operative Societies. Section 135. Certain Acts not to apply to Co-operative societies.-The provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV of 1947) and he U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Act XVIII of 1947), shall not apply to co-operative Societies. In exercise of power under Section 122 of U. P. Co-operative Societies Act with the approval of the State Government and after publication in the gazette U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulation, 1975 have been framed the relevant in respect of the controversy in hand read as follows: Regulation 19. Termination.-Services of an employee shall be terminable: (a) In case of a temporary employee, on one months notice in writing on either side, or in lieu thereof by payment of one months salary by the party which gives notice: Provided that in case of direct appointments made for a specific period it shall not be necessary to given any notice or any pay in lieu thereof. Explanation.-Specified period, means stated period of less than six months (b) by three months, notice in writing on either side in case of a confirmed employee. Explanation.- (1) A notice given by an employee under Regulation No. 19 shall be deemed to be proper only if he remains on duty during the period of the notice. Provided that the employee may be allowed on request to avail such portion of earned leave as may be due to him which shall however, not exceed the notice period. (2) The expression month used in this regulations shall be a period of thirty days commencing on the date immediately following the date on which the notice is received by the employee of the appointing authority, as the case may be. Regulation 29. Rerenchment.- (i) a Co-operative society may, subject to the approval of the Registrar, retrench its employee if the business of the society has either shrunk or the concerned post or posts are to be reduced to effect economy: Provided that compensation where required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is paid to the employees. (ii) In making Rerenchment the policy shall be to retrench the junior most employee of the grade. Regulation 84. (ii) In making Rerenchment the policy shall be to retrench the junior most employee of the grade. Regulation 84. Penalties.- (i) Without prejudice to the provisions contained in any other regulation, an employee who commits a breach of duty enjoined upon him or has been convicted for criminal offence or an offence under Section 103 of the Act or does anything prohibited by these regulations shall be liable to be punished by any one of the following penalties: (a) censure, (b) withholding of increment, (c) fine on an employee of Category IV (Peon, Choukidar, etc.), (d) recovery from pay or security despite to compensate in whole or in part for any pecuniary loss caused to the co-operative society by the employees conduct, (e) reduction in rank or grades held substantively by the employee, (f) removal from service, or (g) dismissal from service. Regulation 86. Appeal.-Orders imposing penalty under sub-clauses (a) to (d) of clause (1) of Regulation No. 84 shall be appealable to the authorities as mentioned in Appendix d. Regulation 87. Order imposing penalty under sub-clauses (e) to (g) of clause (1) of Regulation No. 84 shall not be passed except with the prior concurrence of the Board. Regulation 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, Workmens 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. 6. 6. The provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, which have bearing on the controversy in hand read as follows: Section 2 (s) retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman or any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include: (i) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (ii) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; Section 4-K Reference of disputes to Labour Court or Tribunal.-Where the State Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time by order in writing refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute to a Labour Court if the matter of industrial dispute is one of those contained in the First Schedule, or to a Tribunal if the matter of dispute is one contained in the First Schedule or the Second Schedule for adjudication as the case may be, shall have full power to determine by an to whom and to what extent and subject to what condition, if any, such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purpose aforesaid and such costs may, on application made to the State Government by the person entitled be recovered by the State Government in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue. Section 6. Awards and action to be taken thereon.- (1) Where an industrial dispute has referred to a Labour Court of Tribunal for adjudication, it shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall as soon as it is practicable on the conclusion thereof, submit its award to the State Government. (2) The award of a Labour Court or Tribunal shall be in writing and shall signed by its Presiding Officer. (2-A) An award in an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissed of a workman may direct the setting aside of the discharge or dismissal and reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions if any, as the authority making the award may think fit, or granting such other relief to the workman, including the substitution of any lesser punishment for discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require. (3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) every arbitration award and the award of a Labour Court or Tribunal, shall, within a period of thirty days from the date of its receipt by the State Government be published in such manner as the State Government thinks fit. Section-6-N. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman.-No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by the employer until. (a) the workman has been given one months notice in writing indication the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of the notice: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service: 0 (b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service or any part thereof in excess of six months, and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the State Government. Section-6-R: - Effect of laws inconsistent with Sections 6-J to 6-Q.- (1) The provision from Sections 6-J to 6-Q shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law (including Standing Orders) made under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946: Provided that nothing contained in this Act shall have effect to derogate from any right which a workman has under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, or any notification or order issued there under or any award for the time being in operation or any contract with the employer. (2) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that nothing contained in Sections 6-J to 6-Q shall be deemed of affect the provision of any other law for the time being in force so far as that law provides for the settlement of industrial disputes but the rights and liabilities of employer and workman in so far as they relate to lay-off and retrenchment shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 6-J to 6-Q. 7. So far as the Section 135 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act is concerned it is no more in dispute that the said section has not been notified and is not in force. Consequently, the aforesaid section only exists on the statute book without enforceability. This Court in the judgments reported in 1988 FLR, V- 57, 395 and 1993 FLR, V-67, 87, has held that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not excluded under Section 135 of the Co-operative Societies Act, as the Section 135 has not been enforced. Following the judgments of the Division Bench Honble Single Judge in the case of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, reported in 1999 FLR, V-81, 817, has specifically held that the Section 135 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act have not been enforced by a notification, there is no exclusion of jurisdiction of the forum provided by the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Similarly, the Regulation 103 quoted hereinabove has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Kisan reported in 1989, V-2 Local Bodies Education Services Cases, 134, and it has been held that the service regulation of 1975 shall deemed to inoperative to the extent of their inconsistency with any other provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U. P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmans Compensation Act, 1923 and any other Labour laws for the time being in force. 9. Honble Supreme Court in judgment reported in 2001 (1) LBESR 1020 (SC) : 2001 FLR, V-88, SC, 741, Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow and another, has held as follows: "by plain reading of the said Regulation it is clear that in case of inconsistency between the Regulations and the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the State Act, the Workman 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, to that extent Regulations shall be deemed to be inoperative. In other words the inconsistent provisions contained in the Regulations shall be inoperative, not the provisions of the other statutes mentioned in the Regulation 103". 10. In other words the inconsistent provisions contained in the Regulations shall be inoperative, not the provisions of the other statutes mentioned in the Regulation 103". 10. Section 6-R sub-clause (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, in no uncertain terms declares that the provisions of Section 6-J of Section 6-Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act shall have effect notwithstanding any inconsistent provision in any other law. Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act is included between Section 6-J to Section 6-Q consequently Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act has been declared by law to have effect notwithstanding any inconsistent in any other law. 11. Thus, the provision of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act/industrial Disputes Act shall prevail over the provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulations 1975. As a colliery thereto, the provisions of Regulation 29 of the Co-operative Societies Employees Services Regulations providing for retrehcment, in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act shall remain inoperative, meaning thereby that for retrenchment of a workman employed in the Co-operative Society answering the dispiriting of an industry retrenchment must taken place in accordance with the provisions of Section 6-N of Industrial Disputes Act, notwithstanding anything provided under Regulation 29 of the Regulations of the extent of their inconsistency. 12. In view of the statutory legal position and is in borne out from the statutory provisions referred to above, it cannot be said that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act is excluded by any statutory provision of the Co-operative Societies Act or Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. 2 13. The question now remains is to whether because of the availability of the alternative forum under the provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is ousted. 14. Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1984 AIR SC 286 in Para 3 has held as follows: "he however, argued that the appellant had a remedy against the order of termination of services by way of an appeal to the Board of Management and that his failure to pursue that remedy barred him from raising any Industrial disputes. Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1984 AIR SC 286 in Para 3 has held as follows: "he however, argued that the appellant had a remedy against the order of termination of services by way of an appeal to the Board of Management and that his failure to pursue that remedy barred him from raising any Industrial disputes. He also attempted to connect the order of termination of services with the absence of the workman from the bank on August 13 and 14, 1974, on days when his signature was found in the attendance register. We see no substance in either of the submissions. Raising na industrial dispute in a well recognized and legitimate mode of redress available to a workman, which has achieved statutory recognition under the Industrial Disputes Act and we fail to see why the statute recognized mode of redress should be denied to a workman because of the existence or availability of another remedy. Nor are we able to understand how an industrial Tribunal to whom a dispute has been referred for adjudication an refuse to adjudicate upon it and surrender jurisdiction which it undoubtedly has to some other authority. " 15. Similarly, Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Sahkari Ganna Samiti Ltd. , Basti v. The Presiding Officer, Shram Nayayalaya, Gorakhpur and others, reported in 1997 FLR, V-75, 370 in Paras 9, 10 & 11, has held as follows 2000 (3) LBESR 721 (All) : " (9) There is no provision in the Act providing for the ouster of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide the dispute arising out of termination of the service of the workman, if any alternative forum for remedy is available to the workman. (10) Ouster of jurisdiction of a statutory tribunal cannot be inferred from the existence and availability of alternative forum for remedy. (11) The Court is clearly of the opinion that the submission of the learned Counsel regarding outster of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court on account of the existence of the forum of appeal is wholly misconceived and deserves to be rejected. Likewise, submission that failure of the workman respondents to avail the alternative remedy of appeal debarred the Labour Court from entertaining the reference is unfounded and merits rejection. " 3 16. Likewise, submission that failure of the workman respondents to avail the alternative remedy of appeal debarred the Labour Court from entertaining the reference is unfounded and merits rejection. " 3 16. In view of the said pronouncements of the Honble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, which are binding upon this Court, it cannot be said that mere availability of alternative remedy/alternative forum under Statutory Service Regulations for redressal of the grievance of the workmen, the statute recognized forum of redressal under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act stood excluded. Thus, it cannot be said that because of availability of alternative forum, of appeal etc. under statutory regulations the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a reference under U. P. Industrial Disputes Act stood excluded. 17. The Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in 1979 AIR SC 1203, The Gujarat State Co- operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P. R. Mankand and another, Tribunal has considered the issue in a different prospective and it has been held as follows in Para 28: "28. The matter can be looked at from another angle also. The law of industrial disputes or industrial relations is a special law dealing with rights and obligations specifically created by it. As against this, the provision in Section 54 of the Act of 1925/section 96 of the Act of 1961 is a general provision. In accordance with the maximum generalia specialibus non derogant, therefore, nothing in these general provisions can derogate from BIR Act and the Co-operative Society Act must yield to the special provisions in the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, whenever a dispute clearly comes within the language of the latter Act. " 18. Similar view has been taken by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (1981) 1 SCC Labour and Service Cases, 315; LIC of India v. D. J. Bahadur & others, has held as follows: "52. In determining whether a statute is a special or a general one, the focus must be on the principle subject matter plus the particular perspective. For certain purpose, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes it may be special and we cannot blur distinctions when dealing with finer points of law. In law, we have a cosmos of relativity, not absolutes so too in life. For certain purpose, an Act may be general and for certain other purposes it may be special and we cannot blur distinctions when dealing with finer points of law. In law, we have a cosmos of relativity, not absolutes so too in life. The ID Act is a special stature devoted wholly to investigation and settlement of industrial disputes which provides definitionally for the nature of industrial disputes coming within its ambit. It creates an infrastructure for investigation into, solution of and a adjudication upon industrial disputes. It also provides the necessary machinery for enforcement of awards and settlements. From alpha to omega the ID Act has one special mission resolution of industrial disputes through specialized agencies according to specialized procedures and with special reference to the weaker categories of employees coming within the definition of workmen. Therefore, with reference to industrial disputes between employers and workman, the ID Act is a special stature, and the LIC Act does not speak at all with specific reference to workmen. On the other hand, its 4 powers relate to the general aspects of nationalization of management when private businesses are nationalized and a plurality of problems which, incidentally, involve transfer of service of existing employees of insurers. The workmen qua workmen and industrial disputes between workmen and the employer as such, are beyond the orbit of and have no specific or special place in the scheme of the LIC Act. And whenever there was a dispute between workmen and the management the ID Act mechanism was resorted to. 19. Thus, the availability of alternative forum of way of an appeal etc. under the Regulation of 1975 to an employee who answers the description of workman within the meaning of Section 2 (z) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, cannot be in any way oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to adjudicate upon the dispute on reference being made by the State Government. The statutory right made available to a workman for getting the redressal in respect of a dispute covered by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act cannot be taken away by mere availability of alternative forum. Unless of course there is a specific provision to exclude the Industrial Disputes Act which as already noticed, in the facts of the case does not exist. 20. Unless of course there is a specific provision to exclude the Industrial Disputes Act which as already noticed, in the facts of the case does not exist. 20. So far as the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of R. C. Tiwari v. M. P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. & others, 1997 (2) LBESR 242 (SC) : 1997 SCC V-5, 125, is concerned, same is clearly distinguishable. In the case of R. C. Tiwari (supra) the Deputy Registrar on a reference being made under Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 had already adjudicated and made an award confirming the dismissal of the workman and the same had become final. 21. The Honble Supreme Court while dealing with the question as to whether the award of the Deputy Registrar in view of the Section 55 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act would operate as res-judicata and therefore, the dispute as raised under the Industrial Disputes was legally not maintainable, has held as follows: "we find no force in the contention. Section 55 of the Societies Act gives power to the Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to the employees in society or a class of societies including the terms and conditions of employment of the employment. Where 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. "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. " 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. " 22. In the said judgment Honble Supreme Court has held that the award of the Deputy Registrar was made final by the provisions of the Act itself and the said Section 55 read with Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act leaves no room for doubt that by necessary reference Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act (wrongly mentioned as Societies Act under the passage quoted above) stands excluded. 23. The Honble Supreme Court as such has specifically held that joint reading of the provisions of Section 55 read with Section 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 excludes References under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. No similar provisions under the U. P. Co- operative Society Act or Rules and Regulations framed there under exists on the contrary Section 70 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, which provides for reference to Registrar specifically excludes disciplinary action against said employees from its scope. Regulation 103 provides that in case of conflict with the regulations, the Labour laws, which include Industrial Disputes Act, shall prevail meaning thereby that the provisions of the regulations will give way to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, in case of an inflict. 24. Section 70 of the Act excludes only cases of disciplinary action against the employee. It is, therefore, contended by petitioner that retrenchment of an employee being not an outcome of disciplinary action would be covered by the provisions of Section 70. The said contention is also legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. 24. Section 70 of the Act excludes only cases of disciplinary action against the employee. It is, therefore, contended by petitioner that retrenchment of an employee being not an outcome of disciplinary action would be covered by the provisions of Section 70. The said contention is also legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. Honble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in AIR 1970 Supreme Court 245, Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. & others v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & others, has held that the Registrar while dealing with disputes which are referred to him under the relevant provisions of the amended section itself shall decide the disputes in accordance with provisions of the act and the rules and in such a situation the Registrar cannot be said to be competent to decide the dispute which have effect of changing conditions of service of the employees employed by the society any alternations in these conditions of service will necessary change of viva. Such change could not be possible by the Registrar. Therefore, it was held that the Registrar was not competent to grant the relief claim by the workman at all. On the principle laid down by the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 1320, it was further held that the dispute was not a dispute covered by the provisions of the Act. Applying the principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court as stated above, it would be seen that Section 70 sub-clause (1) leaves no room for doubt that the Register is to decide the dispute strictly in accordance with provisions of the Act and Rules. As already noticed above Rule 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975, provides for retrenchment on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The conditions mentioned under Regulation 29 are in conformity with the conditions which are mentioned under Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the Regulations 103 of the Regulations, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act being a Labour law shall prevail. In such circumstances, the Registrar is not competent to decide the disputes with regards to retrenchment having been effected against an employee contrary to the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and the authority under Industrial Disputes Act in Labour Court is competent to decide. In such circumstances, the Registrar is not competent to decide the disputes with regards to retrenchment having been effected against an employee contrary to the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and the authority under Industrial Disputes Act in Labour Court is competent to decide. Thus, cases of retrenchment are also outside the jurisdiction of the Registrar under Section 70. 25. Similarly, the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1997 FLR V-76, 237, Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & others v. State of Bihar & others, is also distinguishable inasmuch as the Honble Supreme Court in the said judgment has held as follows: "the question for consideration, therefore, is: whether the petitioners can be said to have been `retrenched within the meaning of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act? Every Department of the Government cannot be treated to be "industry" when the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of "industry" to that extent stands excluded". The said judgments as such is applicable only to the Departments of the Government, which cannot be treated to be an industry. The said judgment is not a proposition for holding that the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act stands excluded because of the statutory regulations framed under the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act. 26. The legal position in that regards has now been explained by the Honble Supreme Court of India itself in the unreported judgments in Civil Appeal No. 514 of 2004, Jyant Kumar Misra v. Zonal Chief Engineer & others, wherein it has been held as follows: "in view of the referral order of this Court dated 24th April, 2001 it may be necessary for us to say few words on examining two decisions mentioned in the order in question. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , (1997) 4 SCC 319 , what was contended before the Court is that every department of the Government cannot be treated as industry and dispensing with services of persons engaged on daily wage in a Government department is no a retrenchment. This question would arise only when a contention is raised about the question whether a department is industry or not and then 7 evidence is lead, whereafter, an adjudication could be made. The employee in that case are were daily wage employees under the Co-operative Training institute. This question would arise only when a contention is raised about the question whether a department is industry or not and then 7 evidence is lead, whereafter, an adjudication could be made. The employee in that case are were daily wage employees under the Co-operative Training institute. In Samishta Dube v. City Board, Etawah & Anr. , (1999) 3 SCC 14 , the question for consideration was whether the typist-clerk in administrative office of Nagar Palika could be held to be a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act and whether the termination of such employee could be assailed in the light of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and also the U. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1947. As has been stated earlier in the case in hand, there had never been a contention raised by the State Government that the particular organization, from which the respondent stood terminated, is not an industry. Since that question does not aries for consideration in this case and prima facie also we do not find any apparent conflict between the two decisions referred to above, though our scrutiny is not an in depth scrutiny since this question does not arise for consideration in the case in hand. " 27. The power conferred upon the Registrar under Section 128 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act can also not be read as a right upon the workman go get his dispute against an order from removal from service adjudicated. Inasmuch as the said section is conferred upon the Registrar a discretion only annul any decision/order of the Co-operative Society are mentioned there under. Provisions of Section 128 cannot be read to suggest that the alternative forum for getting the dispute of an workmen adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act excluded. As already noticed above, the power of the Registrar under Section 128 of the Co-operative Societies Act is also confirmed only for taking a decision as to whether any resolution/decisions of the Co-operative Society or Board of Director is in conformity with the Act, Rules and the bye-laws framed there under. The power of the Registrar as such cannot be extended examining the retrenchment of employees which runs contrary to the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. 28. The power of the Registrar as such cannot be extended examining the retrenchment of employees which runs contrary to the provisions of Section 6-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. 28. Having regard to the legal position as born out from the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court referred to above, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act stood excluded under any statutory provision or by necessary reference under any of the provision of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, Rules and Regulations framed there under. 29. Three judgments of the Honble Single Judges referred to above namely, 2003 ESC (Alld.), V-2, 1052, M/s. Kishan Seva Sahakari Samity Ltd. Kushi Nagar v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U. P. at Gorakhpur and others, 2003 (97) FLR 851; M/s. Handloom and Textile Co-operative Societies, Kanpur v. Mithlesh Kumar Tewari and another and 1999, FLR V-82, 260; Nagar Palika, Dehradun & another v. The State of U. P. and another, have not taken note of the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 SC 289 , AIR 1979 SC 1203 , 1981 SCC 111, and Division Bench judgments of this Court reported in 1997 FLR V-75, 370 and further these said judgments of Honble Single Judges having relied upon the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of R. C. Tiwari and Himanshu Kr. Vidyarthi (supra), which are clearly distinguishable. Further the provisions Section 6-R (2) and Regulation 103 of the Regulations of U. P. Co- operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 have not taken noticed. It is held that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal/labour Court under the the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act/industrial Disputes in not ousted by any statutory provisions of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act or Rules and Regulations framed there under or by any necessary reference. 30. In the circumstances, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute as raised and referred by the State Government under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 31. The facts are not in disputed between the parties. In pursuance of the Advertisement dated 12th August, 1980 the petitioner was appointed in Zila Sahakari Federation Ltd. (Petitioner) on probation. On 28-2-1981 in pursuance whereof, he joined on 11-3-1989. 31. The facts are not in disputed between the parties. In pursuance of the Advertisement dated 12th August, 1980 the petitioner was appointed in Zila Sahakari Federation Ltd. (Petitioner) on probation. On 28-2-1981 in pursuance whereof, he joined on 11-3-1989. Regulation 17 provides one year as the period of probation with a power upon the Management to extent the said period of probation to a maximum period of one year thereof only. 32. Thus, the maximum period of probation provided under the allegations is two years. The workman respondent No. 2 continued in the employment after expiry of the maximum period of probation of two years and his services were terminated by means of the order dated 23-11-1984, which have been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. A reading of the order of termination dated 23-11-1984 shows that the services of the workman were not terminated because of his having not completed the period of probation satisfactorily. The order of termination states that the services of respondent No. 2, Atul Tyagi were being terminated under the respondent No. 3 dated 20-11-1984 of the Zila Sahkari Federation Ltd. treating Sri Tyagi as a temporary employee and therefore, in exercise of power under Resolution 19, his services were being terminated by payment of salary of one month in lieu of notice. 33. The dispute pertaining to the termination of services of the workman dated 23-11-1984 was referred under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to Labour Court, and it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 190 of 1995. Labour Court framed two additional issues namely, (a) whether the respondent is covered under the definition of workman as alleged in paragraph No. 1 of the written statement; (b) whether the subject matter of dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in view of the objections raised in para 2 of the written statement. 34. The employees took a decision not to press both the issues as is clear from the statement of the petitioner employers representative dated 28-1-1987. In view of the aforesaid issues, not being pressed by the employer the issues as to whether the workman Sri Atul Tyagi was an workman and further as to whether the dispute could not be adjudicated because of the availability of Section 70 of the Industrial 9 Disputes Act, were specifically given up by the employer. In view of the aforesaid issues, not being pressed by the employer the issues as to whether the workman Sri Atul Tyagi was an workman and further as to whether the dispute could not be adjudicated because of the availability of Section 70 of the Industrial 9 Disputes Act, were specifically given up by the employer. The award of the Labour Court cannot be questioned on the aforesaid grounds by the employer in the present writ petition. 35. The Labour Court has recorded specific findings of fact that the order dated 23-11-1984 was passed without complying with mandatory provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and consequently, the same was null and void. The Labour Court has, accordingly directed reinstate of the workman with full back wages. 36. From the allegations made in the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that the petitioner has not disputed the findings recorded by the Labour Court with regards to non-compliance of provisions of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act nor the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court have been challenged before this Court. 37. In view of the aforesaid, the award of the Labour Court cannot be said to be illegal. This writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. 38. One of the contention raised on behalf of the respondent workman cannot be permitted to go unnoticed. Under the order of termination dated 23-11-1984, it has been mentioned that the survices of the workman were being terminated in pursuance of the Resolution No. 3 dated 20-11-1984 of the District Co-operative Federation Ltd. It has also been mentioned that the salary of one month in lieu of notice is being forwarded by Bank Draft No. 002084 dated 23-11-1984 (enclosed with letter of termination Annexure 1 ). 39. Thus, it is the case of employer that they had terminated the services of the workman vide order dated 23-11-1983 in pursuance of the Resolution dated 20-11-1984. 40. By means of the supplementary affidavit filed in the month of January of 1994 the workmen brought on record, the resolution of the District Co-operative Federation Ltd. dated 24-11-1984 whereby, it was decided to terminate th services of the workman. The said document had not been disputed nor any affidavit has been field by the employer in rebuttal thereof till date. The said document had not been disputed nor any affidavit has been field by the employer in rebuttal thereof till date. It is, thus, established from the record that the decision to terminate the services of the workman was taken by the Federation under the resolution dated 24-11-1984 only, while the order of termination is dated 23-11-1984, which referred to a resolution dated 20-3-1984. There is no such resolution dated 20-3-1984 there is only one resolution dated 24th March, 1984. Thus, the order of termination was passed even prior to the resolution of the said Federation. The workman appears to be correct in asserting that to justify the order dated 23-11-1984, a resolution dated 24-11-1984 was prepared. This conduct of the petitioner deserves to be condemned. 41. In the circumstances, this petition is dismissed with cost. Petition dismissed. .