JUDGMENT Honble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the award dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-l to the Writ Petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P., Meerut (respondent No. 1). 2. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. 3. It appears that by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993, reference of an alleged industrial dispute was made to the respondent No. 1, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 192 of 1993. 4. The alleged dispute referred was as to whether removal/depreviation of the workman-Virendra Pal Singh (respondent No. 2) from work with effect from 30.6.1985 by the employer (petitioner) was proper and legal, and if not, as to what benefits/ reliefs the concerned workman was entitled to and with what other details. 5. Written Statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner (employer) in the said Adjudication Case, inter alia, stating that the termination of services of the respondent No. 2 (workman) was perfectly legal; and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question; and that the services of the respondent No. 2 (workman) were governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which came into force on 6.1.1976. 6. The respondent No. 2 (workman) filed written statement, inter alia, stating that the U.P. Rajya Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. (petitioner) was an apex level society or State level Cooperative Society registered under Section 4 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; and that the services of the employees of the said Bank were governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 as well as the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that the services of the respondent No. 2 (workman) had been terminated in violation of Section 6­N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42 of the Rules framed under the said Act. Copy of the said Written Statement filed by the respondent No. 2 (workman) in the said Adjudication Case has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the present Writ Petition. 7. The respondent No. 2 (workman) filed his rejoinder in reply to the Written Statement filed by the petitioner (employer) in the said Adjudication Case. 7. The respondent No. 2 (workman) filed his rejoinder in reply to the Written Statement filed by the petitioner (employer) in the said Adjudication Case. The petitioner (employer) also filed its rejoinder in reply to the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2 (workman). 8. Evidence was led by both the parties in the said Adjudication Case. 9. By the award dated 24.6.1995, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Meerut-respondent No. 1 held that the removal/deprivation of the workman (respondent No. 2) from work with effect from 30.6.1985 was not proper and legal, and the respondent No. 2 (workman) was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of his past services with effect from the date of the termination of his services as well as with the entire past wages and other benefits. Copy of the said award has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. 10. Against the said award, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 11. I have heard Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and perused the record. 12. It is submitted by Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference made to the Labour Court by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 as also the proceedings before the Labour Court and the impugned award dated 2.6.1995 given by the Labour Court were totally without jurisdiction, as the respondent No. 2 ought to have taken resort to the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and not to the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the applicability of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the employees of the cooperative societies stands excluded. Reliance in this regard is placed by Shri Mishra on the following decisions : (1) R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, (1997) 5 SCC 125 : AIR 1997 SC 2652 . (2) Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC) : 2007 (2) ALJ 719 (SC) : 2007 AIR SCW 956. (3) Brahmawarta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Rajendra Kumar Dixit and others, 2007 (3) ALJ 585. 13. (2) Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and others, 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC) : 2007 (2) ALJ 719 (SC) : 2007 AIR SCW 956. (3) Brahmawarta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Rajendra Kumar Dixit and others, 2007 (3) ALJ 585. 13. In reply, Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that in the decisions relied upon by Shri K.N. Mishra, the provisions of Regulation 103 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 were not considered. It is submitted that in view of the provisions of the said Regulation, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would apply to the employees of the cooperative societies and the provisions of the aforesaid Regulation would become inoperative to the extent of inconsistency. 14. Shri Bohra further submits that in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra), a Resolution had already been passed by the Board of Directors of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., and thereafter, an agreement was also arrived at. There was an order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. In the circumstances, the Apex Court held that the Additional Labour Commissioner was not competent to go into the validity of the aforesaid order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies passed under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. He places reliance on paragraphs 60, 63 and 65 of the said decision of the Apex Court as reported in ALJ (supra). 15. It is submitted that in the present case, the facts are entirely different and no Resolution has been passed by the petitioner-Bank nor has any agreement been entered into by the petitioner-Bank nor is there any order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 16. In rejoinder, Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provisions of Regulation 103 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 cannot be interpreted to mean that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to the employees of the cooperative societies. He lays emphasis on the words if applicable to any cooperative society or class of cooperative societies’ occurring in the said Regulation 103. 17. He lays emphasis on the words if applicable to any cooperative society or class of cooperative societies’ occurring in the said Regulation 103. 17. It is further submitted by Shri Mishra that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra) lays down as a general proposition that the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 alone would govern employment in the cooperative societies, and the applicability of labour laws to the cooperative societies stands excluded. In view of this general proposition, the Apex Court laid down that the Additional Labour Commissioner was not competent to go into the validity of the order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 18. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 19. It is admitted by the respondent No. 2 in the Written Statement, filed in the Adjudication Case before the respondent No. 1, that the petitioner is an apex level cooperative society registered under Section 4 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The respondent No. 2 claimed himself to be an employee of the petitioner, and further claimed that his services were governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. 20. In view of the above admitted position, the question to be decided is as to whether the reference made to the Labour Court by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 and the consequent proceedings taken before the Labour Court and the impugned award dated 24.6.1995 passed by the Labour Court were without jurisdiction in view of the decisions relied upon by Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. 21. In R.C. Tiwari case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court laid down as under (paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the said SCC ) : “2. The only question in this case is : Whether the reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) is maintainable in view of the provisions contained in the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short “the Societies Act”)? Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service for his misconduct. Thereafter, he sought a reference under the Societies Act which was confirmed and became final. Admittedly, the petitioner was dismissed from service for his misconduct. Thereafter, he sought a reference under the Societies Act which was confirmed and became final. On a reference made under the Act, the Labour Court in Case No. 48 of 1985 held that domestic enquiry was vitiated by illegality and accordingly it set aside the order of dismissal. In Writ Petition No. 2077 of 1992 by judgment dated 8-7-1996, the High Court has held that in view of the provisions contained in Section 55 of the Societies Act, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction and, therefore, the reference is bad. It is also held that since the finding was recorded by the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies against the petitioner in the award, it operates as res judicata. The question is whether the view taken by the High Court is correct in Law........" 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on Section 64 of the Act dealing with disputes referable to the arbitration and contends that the dispute of dismissal from service of the employee of the society being not one of the disputes referable to arbitration under the Societies Act, the award of the Deputy Registrar is without jurisdiction. He relied on the decision of this Court in Coop. Central Bank Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, (1969) 2 SCC 43 : AIR 1970 SC 243. He also places reliance on Section 93 of the Societies Act which states that nothing contained in the Madhya Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1958, the M.P. Industrial Workmen (Standing Orders) Act, 1959 and the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 shall apply to a society registered under this Act. By necessary implication, application of the Act has not been excluded and that, therefore, the Labour Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter. We find no force in the contention. Section 55 of the Societies Act gives power of the Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to the employees in the society or a class of societies including the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. We find no force in the contention. Section 55 of the Societies Act gives power of the Registrar to deal with disciplinary matters relating to the employees in the society or a class of societies including the terms and conditions of employment of the employees. 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. 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. Admittedly, there is a finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar upholding the misconduct of the petitioner. That constitutes res judicata. No doubt, Section 11, CPC does not in terms apply because it is not a Court, but a tribunal, constituted under the Societies Act is given special jurisdiction. So, the principle laid down thereunder mutatis mutandis squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act. It operates as res judicata. Thus, we find that the High Court is well justified in holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in law.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. So, the principle laid down thereunder mutatis mutandis squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act. It operates as res judicata. Thus, we find that the High Court is well justified in holding that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute once over and the reference itself is bad in law.” (Emphasis supplied) 21. It will, thus, be noticed that in view of the provisions of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, their Lordships of the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court holding that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the reference itself was bad in law. 22. In Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 vis-a-vis the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and have held that as the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides complete machinery if there is any dispute between the employers and the employees of the Cooperative Society, the Industrial Laws are not applicable for resolving such disputes. 23. It has been held that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is a special enactment and it shall apply in the matter of employment of Cooperative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is a complete Code in itself as regards employment in Cooperative Societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act, i.e., the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 24. It has further been held that the jurisdiction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner was wrongly invoked and his order dated 15.3.2003 under Section 6-H of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is without jurisdiction and hence null and void. 25. It has further been held that it is immaterial whether or not the Government has enforced Section 135 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 because, in any case/ the said provision (Section 135) had been included in the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 only by way of clarification and abundant caution. 26. In Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in R.C. Tiwari case (supra). 27. 26. In Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court followed the decision of the Supreme Court in R.C. Tiwari case (supra). 27. In Brahmawarta Commercial Cooperative Bank Ltd. case (supra), this Court followed the above decisions of the Supreme Court and concluded as under (paragraphs 73, 74 and 75 of the said ALJ) : "73. In view of the above decisions, it is evident that the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, being a special enactment, will prevail over the provisions of the general law, as contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 74. The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, as noted above, provides a complete machinery for resolving disputes between Cooperative Societies and its employees. Therefore, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable in case of Cooperative Societies registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. It is further evident that the provision, as contained in Section 135 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, has been made by way of clarification and abundant caution. Therefore, even though Section 135 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 has not as yet been brought in force, still the above conclusions regarding exclusion of the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Cooperative Societies registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 will hold good. 75. It is further apparent that in case any proceeding in respect of a Cooperative Society, registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, is taken under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, such proceeding would be without jurisdiction, and the orders passed in such proceeding would be null and void”. (Emphasis supplied) 28. Keeping in view the above legal position, let us now consider the facts of the present case. 29. As noted above, it is admitted to the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The respondent No. 2 claimed himself to be an employee of the petitioner-society and alleged that his services had been illegally terminated. 29. As noted above, it is admitted to the respondent No. 2 that the petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The respondent No. 2 claimed himself to be an employee of the petitioner-society and alleged that his services had been illegally terminated. The alleged dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 and the consequent proceedings were taken before the respondent No. 1 (Labour Court) and the impugned award dated 24.6.1995 was given by the respondent No. 1 (Labour Court). 30. In view of the legal position discussed above, it is evident that the reference made to the Labour Court by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 as also the consequent proceedings taken before the respondent No. 1 (Labour Court) were without jurisdiction. The impugned award dated 24.6.1995 passed by the Labour Court (respondent No. 1) was without jurisdiction and was null and void. 31. Coming now to the submissions made by Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, his first submission, as noted above, is based on the provisions of Regulation 103 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975. The said Regulation 103 is as under : “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, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force, if applicable to any cooperative society or class of cooperative societies, shall be deemed to be inoperative.” 32. This regulation, thus, lays down that the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 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, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force, ‘if applicable to any cooperative society or class of cooperative societies’, shall be deemed to be inoperative. 33. This provision, therefore, comes into play only if the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force are applicable to any cooperative society or class of cooperative societies. 34. 33. This provision, therefore, comes into play only if the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, U.P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1962, Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 and any other labour laws for the time being in force are applicable to any cooperative society or class of cooperative societies. 34. As noted above, in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is a special enactment and it shall apply in the matter of employment of cooperative societies to the exclusion of all other labour laws. Hence, the applicability of all other labour laws stands excluded in the matter of employment of cooperative societies registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 35. As the applicability of the labour laws stands excluded in the matter of employment of cooperative societies registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, the provisions of Regulation 103 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 would evidently not come into play. Therefore, the submission of Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 that in view of the provisions of the said Regulation 103, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to the present case, cannot be accepted. 36. The other submission made by Shri Bohra, as noted above, is that the decision in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra) was based on the peculiar facts of the said case. In the said case the Board of Directors of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. passed Resolution for grant of ex­gratia payment to employees. An agreement in this regard was entered by the Chairman of the Union. The matter was referred to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Rule 130 of the Rules framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies acting under Section 128(1) of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 required the Bank to reconsider the matter in view of the ban imposed by the Government on ex-gratia payment. The Board of Directors reiterated their position to make ex-gratia payments. In the circumstances, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies annulled various Resolutions of the Board of Directors in exercise of powers under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Board of Directors reiterated their position to make ex-gratia payments. In the circumstances, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies annulled various Resolutions of the Board of Directors in exercise of powers under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The employees moved an application under Section 6-H ( 1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 purporting to be on the basis of rights under the aforesaid agreement. The Additional Labour Commissioner held that the annulment order passed by the Registrar was not proper and directed that ex-gratia amount be paid as per the Resolutions of the Board of Directors. 37. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows (paragraph 65 of the said ALJ) : "65. The ALC, in law is not competent to declare the statutory order of the Registrar, CS, under Section 128 of the CS Act to be ‘not proper’ and thereby to disregard the same. An order under Section 128 is final and binding and cannot be questioned in any of law in view of Section 102 and even otherwise on general principles of law, an authority under the UPID Act cannot ignore or wish away the statutory consequences of the statutory order passed by the Registrar under Sections 128, 102 etc. of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act.” 38. It is submitted by Shri Bohra that in view of the peculiar facts noted above, the Supreme Court held that the Additional Labour Commissioner was not competent to declare the statutory power of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 to be not proper and thereby to disregard the same. In the present case, it is submitted that there was no Resolution or order of the petitioner-cooperative society nor was there any order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. As such, the submission proceeds, the decision in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra) is not applicable to the present case. 39. Having considered the submissions made by Shri Bohra, I find myself unable to accept the same. 40. The decision in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra) has laid down that as the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides complete machinery if there is any dispute between the employers and the employees of the cooperative societies, the industrial laws are not applicable for resolving such disputes. 40. The decision in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra) has laid down that as the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 provides complete machinery if there is any dispute between the employers and the employees of the cooperative societies, the industrial laws are not applicable for resolving such disputes. The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is a special enactment and it shall apply in the matter of employment of cooperative societies to the exclusion of all other labour laws. The U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 is a complete Code in itself as regards employment in cooperative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act, i.e., the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 41. It is in view of the above legal propositions that the Supreme Court held that the Additional Labour Commissioner was not competent to declare the statutory order of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 to be ‘not proper’ and thereby to disregard the same. The submission that the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra) was based on peculiar facts of the said case, cannot, therefore, be accepted. General propositions of law, as noted above, have been laid down in the said decision. The said propositions constitute the principles on the basis of which the decision was given in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. case (supra). The said principles are the ratio decidendi of the said decision, and the same are applicable to the present case also. 42. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, and the reference made by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 and the proceedings in the Adjudication Case No. 192 of 1993 as also the award dated 24.6.1995 given in the said Adjudication Case are liable to be quashed. 43. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The reference made by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 and the proceedings in the Adjudication Case No. 192 of 1993 as also the award dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) given in the said Adjudication Case are quashed. 44. 43. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The reference made by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 and the proceedings in the Adjudication Case No. 192 of 1993 as also the award dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition) given in the said Adjudication Case are quashed. 44. This decision will, however, not prejudice the right of the respondent No. 2 (Virendra Pal Singh) to seek appropriate remedies under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. 45. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. —–——