JUDGMENT Sharma, Chairman --1. Being aggrieved with the order dated 24.9.2007 passed by Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal in Dispute No. 552/2004, the appellant has preferred this appeal u/s 78 (1) of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Facts of the case are that the appellant was employee of respondent Bank He was appointed as Peon in the year 2000 and after three months he was posted as Computer Operator. Initially he was appointed by Staff Sub Committee on a fixed salary of Rs.5,000/- per month, thereafter his salary was enhanced to Rs.6,000/- per month. Without any intimation, vide order dated 29.4.2004, services of the appellant were terminated. Before termination of services of the appellant, provisions of section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act were not followed. Hence, dispute before Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies was submitted, which was disallowed on the ground that the appellant was not a regular employee and he was working on contractual basis, therefore, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable to the appellant. Hence, appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds: (a) that the order of the Joint Registrar is contrary to the provisions of law and evidence. (b) that it is wrongly held by the Joint Registrar that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable. 3. The core issue for consideration in this appeal is : "Whether the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are applicable in this case or not?" 4. Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable to the appellant's case because the definition of 'Industry' given in Industrial Disputes Act is as under: "Industry means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen." According to him the Respondent Bank comes under the definition of Industries and a dispute between the employee and the Bank is covered under the definition of Industries given in Industrial Disputes Act. As mentioned in section 2 (00) Retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. In this case, services of the appellant were terminated without giving him show cause notice. As mentioned in section 2 (00) Retrenchment means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. In this case, services of the appellant were terminated without giving him show cause notice. Shri Saxena has placed reliance on Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 and The Krishna District Cooperative Marketing Society Ltd., Vikjaywada v. N.V. Purnachandra Rao and others, AIR 1987 (SC) 1960 , wherein it is held that, "the State Act is a later Act and it has received the assent of the President but since there is no repugnancy between the two laws the State law cannot prevail so as to make the provisions of the Central Act relating to retrenchment ineffective in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The State Act does not contain any express provision making the provisions relating to retrenchment in the Central Act ineffective in so far as Andhra Pradesh is concerned. Chapter V-A of the Central Act which is the earlier law deals with cases arising out of lay-off and retrenchment. Section 25-J of the Central Act deals with the effect of the provisions of Chapter V-A on other laws in consistent with that Chapter. Sub-section (2) of section 25-J is quite emphatic about the supremacy of the provisions relating to the rights and liabilities arising out of layoff and retrenchment. These are special provisions and they do not apply to all kinds of termination of services. Section 40 of the State Act deals generally with termination of service, which may be the result of misconduct, closure, transfer of establishment etc. If there is a conflict between the special provisions contained in an earlier law dealing with retrenchment and the general provisions contained in a later law generally dealing with terminations of service, the existence of repugnancy between the two laws cannot be easily presumed. There is therefore not even any implied repugnancy between the Central law and the State law." 5. In reply to the arguments, the counsel for the respondent submits. that, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the Cooperative Societies. There is therefore not even any implied repugnancy between the Central law and the State law." 5. In reply to the arguments, the counsel for the respondent submits. that, the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not applicable to the Cooperative Societies. In this case the appellant was appointed as Peon in the year 2000 and subsequently in the year 2002 he was appointed by Staff Sub-Committee on fixed salary of Rs.5,000/- from 1.12.2002. Thus, the appellant was a temporary employee and not regular. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi and others v. State of Bihar and others, 1997 (II) MPWN 122 = 1997 SCC (L & S) 1079, wherein Supreme Court has held that "Every Department of Government cannot be treated as Industry. When the appointments are regulated by the statutory rules, the concept of industry to that extent stands excluded. Temporary employees were appointed according to the need of the work and they have no right to the post. In this connection we would also like to refer judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 9 SCC 354 , Sagarmal v. District Sahakari Kendriya Bank Ltd., Mandsaur and another, wherein it is held that, There can be no doubt that the provisions of the Central Act, namely, the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 did not apply to the employees of the respondent Cooperative Bank." 6. Controversy in respect of applicability of Industrial Disputes Act has been finally answered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.C. Tiwari v. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., and others, 1997 RN 164, wherein it is held that, "Remedy for service dispute is provided under section 55 and 64 of M.P Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. Applicability of section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 Act is necessarily excluded." 7. This matter has been further considered and elaborated substantially in Vindhyachal Super Thermal Power Project, Sidhi v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Sidhi and another, 1998 (2) MPLJ 645 , wherein with reference to R.C. Tiwari's case (supra) the Hon'ble High Court has observed as follows, "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, shall decide the dispute and his decisions shall be binding on the society and its employees. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that non-payment of the wages would be outside the scope of section 55 (2) of the Act. When a dispute is in relation to the terms of employment and working condition, then it would certainly cover a dispute relating to payment of wages and obviously would include a dispute in relation to the payment of the difference of wages. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court, it cannot be held that the Labour Court had any jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The petition on this short ground deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The award made on 11.2.1997 in the above referred case deserves to and is accordingly quashed being without jurisdiction." 8. In section 11-B of Industrial Disputes Act Labour Court exercising the power of a Judicial Magistrate First Class to try the offences punishable under the Act and the Acts specified in Part-B of the Second Schedule. No such powers have been delegated to the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. Hence, the contention of the appellant's counsel that the provisions of section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are applicable in this case is not sustainable. 9. From the foregoing discussion, it is held that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are neither applicable nor exercisable in the case decided by the Joint Registrar. 10. For the reasons stated above, there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.9.2007 passed by Joint Registrar Cooperative Societies, Bhopal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed and the finding recorded by the Joint Registrar is hereby confirmed. Parties to bear their own costs.