( 1 ) W. P. No. 27441 of 2004 is filed by Karnataka Milk Federation employees Federation and three others seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 24-6-2004 issue by the Labour commissioner. In addition petitioners are also seeking for a direction directing the third respondent to refer the dispute to the industrial tribunal for adjudication. Alternatively, petitioners states that a direction be issued to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies to adjudicate the dispute in terms of the averments. Petitioners in these circumstances are before me. ( 2 ) FIRST petitioner is a federation of various registered trade unions functioning among the workmen employed by KMF and the so-called contractors working in various District Milk Unions referred to as respondents in this petition. The [second and the third respondents] are the contract labourers working in the respondent 15 for the last 10 to 15 years. The fourth petitioner is also a contract labourer working in the fourth respondent. First petitioner-federation has in the past, negotiated with the respondent-managements on many occasions in respect of the service conditions of employees. Settlements have been entered into between the parties. Respondents 4 to 17 are all respectively employers in the milk industry in the entire State of Karnataka. There are several workmen who are working on contract basis as on today. Federation raised a dispute in this regard before the Labour Commissioner and the matter was referred to industrial adjudication. During the pendency of the dispute, the reference was challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition. This Court ruled that the question of abolition of contract labour has to be referred to the State Government. The State government thereafter passed an order for prohibiting employment of contract labour in respondent establishments. The said notification was challenged by the respondents before this Court in W. P. Nos. 48206 to 48212 of 2001. ( 3 ) MANAGEMENTS were not however agreeable for absorption of contract labour. In those circumstances, the federation was compelled to raise disputes before the various authorities. Petitioners filed a petition before the Department of Labour. The Commissioner of Labour has issued an endorsement and in the endorsement the Commissioner has stated that in view of the decision of this Court it is not possible to take up the matter in conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Petitioners filed a petition before the Department of Labour. The Commissioner of Labour has issued an endorsement and in the endorsement the Commissioner has stated that in view of the decision of this Court it is not possible to take up the matter in conciliation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thereafter petitioner moved the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959. Registrar has chosen to issue an endorsement saying that since the petitioner-federation is not an institution registered under the karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, the dispute cannot be entertained. It was informed that since the dispute is collective in nature, it cannot come under Section 70 of the Act. Petitioners in these circumstances, are before me seeking for various prayers. ( 4 ) NOTICES have been issued and respondents have entered appearance. ( 5 ) SRI M. C. Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would invite my attention to Section 70 of the Act to say that a dispute of this nature cannot be adjudicated by a Registrar of co-operative Societies and in such circumstances Industrial Disputes act is the only answer. He would rely on a Full Bench decision of this court to say that the matters can be referred by the Government in terms of the Industrial Disputes Act. ( 6 ) PER contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would say that there are subsequent developments after filing of the case. He says that the workmen have again approached the Government and thereafter a reference was made by the Tribunal. A writ petition was filed and this court ruled that the Government has to consider the issue of abolition of contract labour. A notification under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 was issued and that notification was successfully challenged by the management in this Court. He therefore says that there are subsequent developments and that therefore these writ petitions cannot be considered by this Court. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing, I have carefully perused the material on record. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, respondent-management is a co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, 1959. Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act provides for resolving the dispute in terms of Section 70 of the said Act and particularly Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act. Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act reads as under:"70. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, in this case, respondent-management is a co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act, 1959. Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act provides for resolving the dispute in terms of Section 70 of the said Act and particularly Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act. Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act reads as under:"70. Disputes which may be referred to Registrar for decision.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative society arises.- (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) x x x (d) x x x (2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative Society, namely.- (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) x x x (d) any dispute between a Co-operative Society and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Society". ( 9 ) THE Government in its wisdom in terms of Act No. 2 of 2000 (Amended Act) has chosen to say that a dispute can be referred to a registrar notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Industrial disputes Act. Thereafter there is a specific exclusion of Industrial disputes Act in terms of Act 2 of 2000. This very issue was considered by this Court on an earlier occasion in Veerashaiva Co-operative Bank limited, Bangalore v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore and others (W. P. Nos. 14792 to 14804 of 1998, dated 9-3-2000) and a direction was issued to the management to approach the Registrar under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. This judgment was subsequently considered in a reference by a Full Bench in a judgment in Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation (Regd.), Bangalore v State of Karnataka and Others. , A Full Bench after noticing the various case laws ultimately would say in para 30 reading as under:"it is seen that a Co-operative Society is constituted and registered under the statute and such registered body has to follow the mandatory provisions of Rules and Regulations. , A Full Bench after noticing the various case laws ultimately would say in para 30 reading as under:"it is seen that a Co-operative Society is constituted and registered under the statute and such registered body has to follow the mandatory provisions of Rules and Regulations. The employees of the Co-operative Society may also be governed by the contract of personal service, but whenever dispute touching the constitution, management or business of a Co-operative Society arises between a Society and another Co-operative Society and so also the disputes arising regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by the co-operative Society, such disputes may be adjudicated by the registrar of the Co-operative Societies as stated. A reference can be made to the decision taken by the Supreme Court in Ram sahan Rai v Sachiv Samanaya Prabandhak and Another, AIR 2001 SC 1173 : (2001)3 SCC 323 : 2001 SCC (L and S) 584, wherein it was observed that the mere fact that there may be occasions where the union or the Federation of the Societies may raise certain demands which may not fall within the ambit of section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and cannot be decided by the Registrar or his nominee and that such disputes can be referred to the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, would not render the provisions of the Amendment Act unconstitutional as the Amendment Act incorporates the provisions ousting the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court only in respect of matters which can be decided by the Registrar or his nominee in respect of a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka co-operative Socities Act". ( 10 ) THEREFORE what is clear to this Court is that if a dispute falls within the meaning of Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act, then no reference can be made under the Industrial Disputes Act. Let me see as to whether the demand of workmen in the case on hand would fall under Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act. Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act speaks of a dispute between Co-operative Societies and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Society. In this writ petition what the workmen want is regularisation of contract labour. Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act speaks of a dispute between Co-operative Societies and its employees or past employees or heirs or legal representatives of a deceased employee, including a dispute regarding the terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Society. In this writ petition what the workmen want is regularisation of contract labour. They are yet to become employees of the Society. The contract labour is like a child in the womb and the child is yet to take its birth in the form of an employee. In these circumstances as rightly pointed out by Sri narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel, this matter cannot form a dispute that can be adjudicated by a Registrar in terms of Section 70 (2) (d) of the act. This dispute is outside Section 70 (2) (d) of the Act. Therefore ousting of jurisdiction under Industrial Disputes Act is not available insofar as this petition is concerned. In fact in para 19 in the Full Bench judgment, it is categorically stated that when the Karnataka Co-operative Societies act expressly excludes the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the industrial Tribunal in respect of matters covered under Section 70, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act stand excluded to that extent only. In respect of all matters which are not covered under Section 70, the Industrial Disputes Act, applies. Since the present dispute is not covered under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the industrial Disputes Act alone is applicable in terms of the Full Bench judgment and in terms of Section 70 itself. In these circumstances, the endorsement issued by the Commissioner has to be set aside and the matter is to be reconsidered by him in accordance with law. However, this Court deems it proper to observe that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the matter. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to place such additional material as are necessary before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner is directed to accept the same and thereafter proceed to consider in accordance with law. Liberty is reserved to both the parties to place such additional material as are necessary before the Labour Commissioner. The Labour Commissioner is directed to accept the same and thereafter proceed to consider in accordance with law. This Court also deems it proper to observe that it is ultimately for the Government to take a decision in terms of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, in the light of the conciliation proceedings/report and in the light of the material on record in accordance with law. Since I have already ruled that the Labour commissioner has the jurisdiction to try this dispute, the notification issued by the Registrar also is set aside without going into the merits of the matter in the light of this order. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .