JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard Sri Amit Bose, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 11.8.2010 passed by the Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in Adjudication Case No. 58 of 2006 between the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur and the petitioner whereby the reference of industrial dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 regarding the validity of the order of dismissal from service dated 14.12.1999 passed by the General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur has been returned unanswered on the ground that the reference order was without jurisdiction in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 , wherein it is said to have been held that all the disputes relating to employees of Cooperative Societies in the State of U.P. cannot be heard and decided by Labour Courts and Industrial Disputes Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act and it is only the authorities constituted under U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, which can consider and decide such disputes. The petitioner also challenged the order dated 7.9.2010 of Labour Court, Lucknow whereby application for recall of impugned award has been rejected. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner who was a Senior Cane Development Inspector of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Mahmoodabad, district Sitapur (here-in-after referred to as the “Respondent-Mill”) was issued charge-sheet on 27.5.1999 containing three charges. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter without holding proper enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.12.1999. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 519 (S/S) of 2000, Rama Shankar Vaish v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sitapur and another. The petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter without holding proper enquiry the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 14.12.1999. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal before this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 519 (S/S) of 2000, Rama Shankar Vaish v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sitapur and another. During pendency of the said writ petition before this Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Shatrughan Nishad and others, 2003 (8) SCC 639 , came to the conclusion that the Respondent-Mill was not covered under the definition of term ‘State’ as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as such, no writ petition was maintainable against the Respondent-Mill under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the service disputes raised in the writ petitions giving rise to the aforesaid judgment involved disputed questions of facts, which will be decided by the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, as such, while allowing the appeal the Hon’ble Supreme Court relegated the parties to the aforesaid case to raise industrial disputes for adjudication by the Courts constituted under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Court while appreciating the preliminary objections of the Respondent-Mill and taking into consideration the judgment of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. Shatrughan Nishad and others (supra) dismissed the writ petition vide judgment and order dated 10.1.2006 with the observation that if any reference is moved by the petitioner, the State Government will refer the matter in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act within three months and the Labour Court was directed to decide the same within a period of two years. In pursuance to the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to the order of dismissal from service passed against him under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act on 4.2.2006 and the State Government vide Government Order dated 17.5.2006 made reference to the Labour Court U.P., Lucknow for adjudication. On receipt of the aforesaid reference, the Labour Court Lucknow issued notice to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for putting in their appearance. The petitioner filed his written statement duly supported by an affidavit challenging the order of dismissal from service. On receipt of the aforesaid reference, the Labour Court Lucknow issued notice to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for putting in their appearance. The petitioner filed his written statement duly supported by an affidavit challenging the order of dismissal from service. The Respondent-Mill also filed written statement. 4. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while aforesaid proceedings were pending before the Labour Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 , came to the conclusion that U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a complete code in itself as regards employment in cooperative societies and its machinery and provisions would apply in the matter of employment by cooperative societies to the exclusion of all other labour laws. Soon after the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court the Respondent-Mill raised an objection before the Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow that the reference order in the case of petitioner was bad in law as the Respondent-Mill, which is a cooperative society registered under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, does not fall within the ambit of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner filed objection against the objection of Respondent-Mill. The Labour Court by means of impugned order dated 11.8.2010 came to the conclusion that the reference of industrial dispute relating to the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner was without jurisdiction in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court taken in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra). However, the learned Labour Court left it open to the petitioner to seek relief against the impugned order of dismissal from service before the competent authorities under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act without specifying that who was the competent authority under the Act, which could consider the validity of the order of dismissal from service passed against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for recall of order dated 11.8.2010, which was dismissed by means of order dated 7.9.2010. 5. The petitioner filed an application for recall of order dated 11.8.2010, which was dismissed by means of order dated 7.9.2010. 5. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the instant case for the simple reason that the reference of industrial dispute relating to order of dismissal from service against the petitioner was made by the State Government in pursuance to the judgment of this Court dated 10.1.2006 and, thus, neither could the Respondent-Mill have raised the objection about the validity of the reference nor the Labour Court had any authority to consider the validity of reference order especially when the Respondent-Mill did not challenge the aforesaid judgment of this Court and accepted the same and, therefore, it became final. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is settled principle of law that the Labour Court acquires jurisdiction to decide a question/ dispute only on account of the reference order and, as such, it cannot go into the question of validity of the reference order. Once a reference is made by the appropriate Government, the Labour Court has no other option, but to decide the dispute referred on merits and if according to any of the parties before the Labour Court, the reference order is bad in law on any ground whatsoever, it is open to the party concerned to challenge the reference order before this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not open to the Labour Court to consider the validity of the reference order, especially when a reference is made as per the directions of this Hon’ble Court. The Labour Court erred in passing the impugned order. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable, both in facts and law, and in that view of the matter also the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are rendered illegal. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable, both in facts and law, and in that view of the matter also the impugned orders passed against the petitioner are rendered illegal. In Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) the matter relates to the payment of ex-gratia amount to the employees of the said bank wherein there was an agreement entered into between the bank and its employees for payment of ex-gratia to its employees, which was repeatedly objected by the Registrar and the bank was required several times to reconsider the resolution of its Committee of Management for payment of ex-gratia amount to its employees, but every time bank decided to pay ex-gratia amount to its employees. The said agreement was sought to be executed under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, which was allowed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner and thereafter the Registrar in exercise of its powers under Section 128 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act annulled all the resolutions of the bank for payment of ex-gratia amount. After the aforesaid order was passed by the Registrar, the bank filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court challenging the said order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner concerned. The writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Labour Commissioner to reconsider its earlier decision in view of the order passed by the Registrar. However, after remand also the Deputy Labour Commissioner came to the conclusion that the aforesaid order of the Registrar was itself not proper and again directed for payment of ex-gratia amount to the employees of the bank. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the bank filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court, which was dismissed. Against the dismissal order, the bank filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in this background one of the question raised before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that no proceedings could be taken under the provisions of Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act in respect of any settlement or award or order passed under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and on that ground alone the order passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner was absolutely without jurisdiction. Another ancillary question raised that the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is a complete code in itself in respect of the employment of the employees of the Cooperative Societies and in that situation the general provisions of labour laws including the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act would not apply and whatever action has to be taken has to be under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act only. 7. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the scheme of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is very clear that it is only a dispute between the Cooperative Society and its members or past employee or deceased members or its employees except in the matters relating to disciplinary proceedings that can be a subject matter of a reference under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. An order passed by the Registrar under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act annulling a resolution passed by the cooperative society can never be subject matter of a reference under Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act especially when an appeal lies against the order under Section 98 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and it is the appellate order, which can be executed under Section 92 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. 8. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations have to be considered in the factual background of the case and the said decision cannot be considered to be an authority for the proposition that in no case a reference of an industrial dispute relating to an employee of a cooperative society can be referred under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act despite the fact that in the aforesaid decision the Hon’ble Supreme Court has no where considered the question whether the cooperative society is an “Industry” within the meaning of the said term as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order of dismissal from service could not be made a subject matter of reference under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, as the said provision itself excludes matters relating to disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the cooperative society. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the order of dismissal from service could not be made a subject matter of reference under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, as the said provision itself excludes matters relating to disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the cooperative society. In the present case, no proceedings under Section 128 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act could be taken by the petitioner as the impugned order of dismissal from service was passed by the Administrator of the Respondent-Mill, who was at the relevant time, the District Magistrate, Sitapur, whose order could not have been scrutinized by the Registrar even though it can be said that an Administrator of the cooperative society exercises all the powers of the Committee of Management of the cooperative society and on that very basis learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has no remedy under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and the judgment of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. (supra) cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that this is the appropriate case where the direction be issued to the Labour Court to consider and decide the reference made by the State Government by means of order dated 17.5.2006 on merits within time frame fixed by this Court. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed before this Court the copy of “STANDING ORDERS COVERING THE CONDITION OF EMPLOYMENT OF WORKMEN IN VACUUM PAN SUGAR FACTORIES IN U.P.”, in which in the definition clause the workmen has been defined and it says that the workmen will have same meaning, which has been defined under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 12. Admittedly, the Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. Mamoodabad District Sitapur is an industry and is functioning as a cooperative society. Therefore, the provisions of Cooperative Societies Act are applicable to the concerned sugar mill and the matters which are not covered under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the same can be taken care of by the concerned general laws. In the case of dismissal from service, since Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, specifally bars the dispute relating to disciplinary action, as such, concerned employee can always approach the forum constituted under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for redressal of his grievance. 13. In the case of dismissal from service, since Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, specifally bars the dispute relating to disciplinary action, as such, concerned employee can always approach the forum constituted under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for redressal of his grievance. 13. Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 very fairly admitted that under Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 the dispute relating to disciplinary action taken against the paid servant of a society cannot be referred to arbitration. However, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the Civil Court. 14. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 15. Section 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act provides a forum for settlement of disputes other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action against paid servant of a society. Section 70 of the Cooperative Societies Act reads as under : “70. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises. (a) among members, past members and person claiming through members, past members and deceased members ; or (b) between a member, past member or any person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, and the society, its committee of management or any officer, agent or employee of the society, including any past officer, agent or employee ; or (c) between, the society or its committee and any post committee, any officer, agent or employee or any post officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or (d) between a co-operative society and any other co-operative society or societies; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for action in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any such dispute: Provided that a dispute relating to an election under the provisions of this Act or rules made thereunder shall not be referred to the Registrar until after the declaration of the result of such election. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following shall be deemed to be included in dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, namely - (a) claims for amounts due when a demand for payment is made and is either refused or not complied with whether such claims are admitted or not by the opposite party; (b) a claim by a surety against the principal debtor where the society has recovered from the surety and amount in respect of any debt or demand due to it from the principal debtor as a result of the default of the principal debtor or whether such debt or demand is admitted or not ; (c) a claim by a society for any loss caused to it by a member, officer, agent, or employee including past or deceased member, officer, agent, or employee, whether individually or collectively and whether such loss be admitted or not; and (d) all matters relating to the objects of the society mentioned in the bye-laws as also those relating to the election of office-bearers. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute relating to the constitution, management or the business of a co-operative society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall not be called in question in any Court.” 16. The perusal of aforesaid Section 70 reveals that the provisions itself exclude the matter relating to disciplinary proceedings against an employee of the Cooperative Society. Para-82 of the judgment of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd (Supra) reveals that reliance has been placed in the judgment of R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd., 1997 (5) SCC 125 , the examining of the judgment of R.C. Tiwari v. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. (Supra) reveals that the provisions of M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 were taken into consideration. The Section 55 (2) of the Act provides remedy against the disciplinary action taken by a society, and a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society are included in the section, whereas Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, exclude the dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society. Moreover, in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd (Supra) the issue was not involved with respect to disciplinary matter against an employee and in the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not considered the question whether the Cooperative Society is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of terms as defined in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and also the question whether an individual dispute regarding the order of dismissal from service passed against an employee of the Cooperative Society can never be referred for adjudication before the Labour Court despite the provisions of Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The judgment also does not address to the issue as to if any action against an employee of a Cooperative Society amounts to an industrial dispute-individual or collective, still the remedy would lie only under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and not in the forums created by U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. It is settled position of law that if a particular dispute between an employer and an employee or group of employees relating to an industry is a industrial dispute, the only remedy lies under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act or U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mill Ltd. Sultanpur v. Shatrughan Nishad and others, 2003 (8) SCC 639 , while examining the issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the Sugar Mill set aside the judgment of High Court and relegated the authorities to raise industrial dispute for adjudication by the Courts constituted under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 18. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Civil Appeal No. 2727 of 2008, U.P.C.U.E.F. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner & R.C.C.S. and others, in case of termination of an employee of a cooperative cane union, which is a cooperative society, on account of curtailment of period of crushing season which amounted to termination before expiry of term held that orders amending the definition of crushing season could not have been passed without giving any notice in compliance with Section 4-I read with the Third Schedule of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1956. The relevant observation of the Apex Court runs as under: “Admittedly, as per the earlier definition, as noted herein earlier, “Crushing Season” meant the period beginning on the 1st of October in any year and ending on 15th of July next following. By virtue of the amended definition, “Crushing Season” means the period commencing from the date when the crushing of sugarcane in the concerned sugar factories commences till the date when crushing ends. In our view, this change in the definition of “Crushing Season” would affect the period for which the employees are to be paid the wages and this change is squarely covered by clause I of the Third Schedule as noted herein earlier. Therefore, in our view, it was incumbent upon the Cane Commissioner to serve a notice upon the appellant before effecting any change in the definition of “Crushing Season”. 19. In case of Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow and another, 2001 SCC (L&S) 438, the Apex Court held that the remedy against the termination, dismissal, removal which amounted to retrenchment was available only under the Industrial Disputes Act, not under the Cooperative Societies Act. While referring to the Regulation 103 which reads “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,” the Apex Court held that the only remedy was available under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The regulations have been framed under Section 122 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act and are in force, while Section 135 though has been brought on the statute book but it has not been enforced so far. Thus, the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner and others (Supra) is clearly distinguishable from Vikramaditya Pandey’s case (supra) and ratio is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 20. Admittedly, against the termination/ dismissal/ retrenchment of an employee of the cooperative society, there is no remedy under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Labour Commissioner and others (Supra) is clearly distinguishable from Vikramaditya Pandey’s case (supra) and ratio is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 20. Admittedly, against the termination/ dismissal/ retrenchment of an employee of the cooperative society, there is no remedy under the provisions of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is always open for the concerned employee of the cooperative society to invoke the remedies provided under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 21. In view of the above, the impugned award dated 11.8.2010 passed in Adjudication Case No. 58 of 2006 between the Kisan Sahkari Chini Milli, Ltd. Mahmoodabad District Sitapur and Rama Shanker Vaish, by which the reference was returned unanswered on the ground that the reference order was without jurisdiction, and the order dated 7.9.2010 by which the application for recall of order was rejected, as contained in Annexures-1 and 2 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. 22. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow is hereby directed to consider and decide the Adjudication Case No. 58 of 2006 in accordance with law and taking into consideration the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 519 (S/S) of 2000; Rama Shanker Vaish v. Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sitapur and another dated 10.1.2006. 23. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. —————