Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the award dated 30th January, 1993 (Annexure E) passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Sagar in Case No. 9/921. D. Act by which the respondent No. 1 has been directed to be reinstated with full backwages. ( 2. ) THE contention of Sushri Surabhi Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the impugned award is without jurisdiction since before the termination of the services of respondent No. 1, he was serving under the employment of petitioner which is a society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, i960 (in short the Act of 1960 ). According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner provisions of the Act of 1960 are applicable to the parties and, therefore, if the respondent No. 1 wants to get his dispute and grievance redressed, he should have approached the Assistant Registrar by filing a dispute under Section 55 (2) of the Act of 1960. The provisions of industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act of 1947) are not applicable to the parties since they are governed by the provisions of the Act of 1960. In support of her contention, learned Counsel has placed reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court. They are R. C. Tiwari Vs. M. P. State Co-operative marketing Federation Ltd. and others, (1997) 5 SCC 125 and Sagarmal Vs. Distt. Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. , Mandsaur and another, (1997) 9 SCC 354 . Learned Counsel has further submitted that on the same principle there are two decisions of this Court. They are Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd. , Mandsaur vs. Labour Courts, Mandsaur and another, 1993 M. P. S. L. R. 428 and Liquidator of Citizens Urban Co-op. Bank and another Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, 1997 RN 322. ( 3. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 4. ) ON going through the averments made in the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 1, it is gathered that he is an employee of Sagar Dugdh sangh Sahakari Maryadit. ( 3. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. ( 4. ) ON going through the averments made in the statement of claim filed by respondent No. 1, it is gathered that he is an employee of Sagar Dugdh sangh Sahakari Maryadit. Admittedly, the petitioner is a body registered under the Act of 1960 and, therefore, service conditions of its employees shall be governed by the provisions of Act of 1960. Under Section 55 (2) of the Act, if there is any dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, 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. In that regard it would be apposite to re-write Section 55 (2) which reads thus :- "55. Registrars power to determine conditions of employment in societies.- (1 ). . . . . (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, 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 : provided that the Registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned : provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded. " Since the respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner society registered under the Act of 1960, he should have approached the forum provided under the Act of 1960 under Section 55 (2 ). The provisions of Act of 1947 are not at all applicable. In this regard I may profitably rely the two decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of R. C. Tiwari and Sagarmal (supra ). The Apex Court in these decisions has categorically held that Act of 1960 is very comprehensive and the special procedure has also been provided therein. Thus, reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 stands excluded. The Apex Court in these decisions has categorically held that Act of 1960 is very comprehensive and the special procedure has also been provided therein. Thus, reference under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 stands excluded. In the case of sagarmal (supra), the Apex Court has held that award passed by the Labour court under the Act of 1947 of an employee whose services are governed by the act of 1960, is a nullity. The Apex Court specifically held that the employee should approach the forum provided under the Act of 1960 under Section 55 (2)of the Act. The Apex Court further held that even the provisions of M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 are not applicable in these matters. The same principle has been followed by this Court in the cases of Zila Sahakari Kendriya bank and Liquidator of Citizens Urban Co-op. Bank (supra ). Thus, I am of the view that the impugned award passed by the Labour Court is coram non judice and I have no option except to set aside that award being nullity. ( 5. ) AB judicata, by accepting the able arguments advanced by Sushri surabhi Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, this petition is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 30-1-1993 (Annexure E) passed by the Labour Court is hereby set aside. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Misc. Petition allowed.