ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—This petition is filed by Sahakari Sakkare Karkahane Niyamitha, Aland Karmikara Sangha. Petitioner -trade union took up the issue of layoff declared by the management by way of conciliation before the labour authorities. On receipt of the same, the Commissioner of Labour has in terms of Annexure-A ruled that the Petitioner has to approach the Registrar of Co-operative Societies in terms of Section 70 of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Petitioner says that in the light of the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation (R) , Rep. by its President Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Secretary, Department of Co-operation and Others, ILR (2003) KAR 2531 , it cannot be said that Section 70 would come to the aid of the Petitioners. Petitioner in these circumstances is before me challenging the endorsement Annexure-A as unjust and illegal with a further prayer to entertain the petition filed by them under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 2. Notices have been issued and Respondents have entered appearance. 3. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 4. From the material on record it is seen that the Labour Commissioner, has chosen to reject the case in terms of the endorsement in the light of a judgment in WP Nos. 14792-804 of 1998 dated 9.3.2000. Let me see as to whether this endorsement would stand the test of law. Industrial Dispute Act is a Special Act providing for resolving the industrial dispute between the workmen and the management. The said Act provides for various contingencies like layoff, retrenchment, lockout, closure, strike etc. Chapter V(A) and (B) have been introduced as special provisions to meet the special circumstances by an individual/workman. Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, with reference to the Industrial Disputes Act would be a General Act in so far these aspects are concerned. Law is fairly well settled that a Special Act would prevail over the General Act. 5. It is also to be noticed at this stage that a Division Bench of this Court in Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, ILR (2000) KAR 3743 has ruled that in the case of termination of the employees of co-operative societies have to take recourse to Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and not to the Labour Court. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, ILR (2000) KAR 3743 has ruled that in the case of termination of the employees of co-operative societies have to take recourse to Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act and not to the Labour Court. This was subsequently considered by a Full Bench in the case of Karnataka Sugar Workers Federation (R) , Rep. by its President Vs. State of Karnataka, Rep. by Secretary, Department of Co-operation and Others, ILR (2003) KAR 2531 . The Full Bench has accepted the judgment in Veerashiva Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others, ILR (2000) KAR 3743 . The Full Bench however was considering termination of individual employees in that case. In para 18 the Full Bench noticed that the dispute pertaining to charter of general demands can be espoused collectively by the Union and not by an individual. The Full Bench also noticed in para 19 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 ID Act stand excluded to that extent only. In respect of all matters which are not covered under Section 70, the ID Act applies. Let me see as to whether the layoff claim comes under Section 70(2)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act. 6. Section 70(2)(d) provides for 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. At most the layoff may come within the 'terms of employment' under Section 70(2)(d) of the Act. But at the same time this Court has to notice that there is no reference to layoff compensation or the adjudication machinery with regard to layoff effected in terms of the ID Act under the Co-operative Societies Act. In this connection, it is pertinent to notice a few judgments cited by Sri Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel with regard to understanding of Section 70(2)(d) of the Act in so far as layoff is concerned. 7. In this connection, it is pertinent to notice a few judgments cited by Sri Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel with regard to understanding of Section 70(2)(d) of the Act in so far as layoff is concerned. 7. A Full Bench of this Court in ILR 1996 Kar 2069 was considering Section 13-B of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 and ruled that it is a Special Act and being a Special Act, its provisions override other law on the subject, covered by it, even if the industrial establishment in question is constituted or governed by such other law. 8. The Supreme Court has considered this issue in Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited, Vijayawada Vs. N.V. Purnachandra Rao and Others, AIR 1987 SC 1960 . The facts in that case as I see is that the Petitioner in that case was a co-operative society. Respondent -workman were retrenched by the society on the ground that the business of management did not warrant the continuance of its heavy establishment. Workmen filed an appeal under Section 41 of the State Act. The appellate authority set aside the order of retrenchment and ordered reinstatement. Appeals were filed by the management before the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the first appellate authority. Thereafter writ petitions were filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Court took the view that the workmen could not claim the benefit of Section 25F of the Central Act in a proceeding initiated under Section 41 of the State Act. The matter was taken up before the Division Bench, the Division Bench allowed the appeals holding that the orders of termination were unsustainable. Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench, management approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled in para 10 as under: 10. The result of the above discussion is that if the employees are 'workmen' and the management is an 'industry' as defined in the Central Act and the action taken by the management amounts to 'retrenchment' then the rights and liabilities of the parties are governed by the provisions of Chapter V-A of the Central Act and the said rights and liabilities may be adjudicated upon and enforced in proceedings before the authorities under Sections 41(1) and 41(3) of the State Act. 9. 9. From these judgments what is clear to this Court is that there must be a machinery evolved for the purpose of adjudication of collective dispute of this nature under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. Since in the case on hand, there is no specific machinery by way of a statutory provision available for consideration of a special provision of law contained in a Special Act, namely the ID Act, of a collective dispute and also in the light of the principle of Special Act overriding the General Act, I deem it proper to hold that the special provision of Special Act, namely ID Act, would prevail over the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, the General Act. In that view of the matter, I find substance in the argument of Sri M.C. Narasimhan, learned Senior Counsel, with regard to the applicability of the ID Act. In these circumstances, I have no hesitation in setting aside the impugned endorsements. The Labour Department is directed to take on record, the dispute of the workman and consider the same for the purpose of adjudication in terms of the provisions of the ID Act. 10. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Endorsement Annexure-A is set aside. No costs.