JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 2 1-10-1997, 25-4-1998 (Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the writ petition), passed by Labour Court, Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 51/1997 H.K. Bahuguna Vs. F.R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this writ petition are that, the petitioner is a Cooperative Society, registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. In the year 1980-81 the annual general meeting of the society passed a resolution to pay D.A. to its workers, but since the financial position of the Society became precarious and the Society did not have funds, a resolution was passed in the general meeting held on 30-9-1991 that the D.A. to the workers shall be suspended from July, 1991 onwards till such time the financial position improves and 9% dividend is paid to the members of the Society. Being aggrieved by the resolution the workers filed a petition U/S 3 of the Timely Payment of Wages Act in the year 1993 before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dehradun. The workers including respondent No.2 also filed an application U/S 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 read with rule 229 of the Rules, 1969, before District Assistant Registrar, Pauri. The aforesaid application was registered as case No. 2191-99/93-94. The Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies by its judgment dated 30-3-1994 rejected the claim of the workers and held that the workers are not entitled to any D.A. The workers also moved a similar application before Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Dehradun alleging that they are entitled to D.A. from July, 1991 onwards. The workers lost their claim before all the above three authorities. Thereafter the respondent No.2 moved an application U/S 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,33,663/- towards D.A. from July 1991 onwards. The workers lost their claim before all the above three authorities. Thereafter the respondent No.2 moved an application U/S 33(C)(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming a sum of Rs. 1,33,663/- towards D.A. from July 1991 onwards. The Labour Court vide impugned order dated 21-10-97 allowed the claim of the respondent No.2 and has held that the Managing Committee of the Cooperative society vide its resolution dated 24-7-92 had resolved that the workers shall be paid D.A. which is due from July 1981 and January 1992, therefore it was directed that the balance amount of D.A. as described in the enclosure of the application be paid to the workman within two months and the amount shall be deducted during the year 1996 when the workman remain on strike. 3. Feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the workman has raised the same dispute with regard to payment of D.A. which was earlier rejected by the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society and by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Debradun, therefore, the claim made before the Labour Court could not have been agitated and the proceeding before the Labour Court is barred by the principle of resjudicata. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.1. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service by way of publication. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the workman has raised the same dispute with regard to payment of D.A. before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society and by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Debradun, and the claim was rejected by these authorities, therefore, the claim made before the Labour Court could not have been agitated and the proceeding before the Labour Court is barred by the principle of resjudicata. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of R. C. Tiwari vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, reported in (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 125. 6. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of R. C. Tiwari vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others, reported in (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 125. 6. From perusal of record shows that against the resolution dated 30-3-1991, by which it was resolved that the D.A. to the workers shall be suspended from July, 1991 onwards till such time the financial position improves and 9% dividend is paid to the members of the Society, the workers including the respondent No.2 have also filed an application U/S 70 of U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 before the District Assistant Registrar and the said application was registered as Case No. 2191-99/93-94. The Assistant Registrar vide judgment dated 30-3-1994 rejected the claim of the workers including the respondent No.2 and has held that the workers are not entitled to any D.A. Further all the workers had also moved a similar application before Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region Dehradun, and there too the workers could not succeed and thereafter the respondent No.2 has moved application U/S 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act. 7. In the case of R.C. Tiwari vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. and others (Supra), the petitioner, an employee of the Cooperative Society was dismissed from service. He referred the dispute to the Registrar under Section 55 and 65 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Deputy Registrar upheld the finding that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct. However, on a reference U/S 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour Court declared the domestic enquiry invalid. Under Section 55(2) of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act 1960 the Registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant registrar, has jurisdiction to decide the dispute relating to disciplinary action and as such decision is binding on the society and its employees. Further section 64 of the above Act of 1960, any dispute touching the constitution, a management or business of a society shall be referred to the Registry by any of the parties to the dispute. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the reference U/S 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable, as special procedure has been provided U/S 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the reference U/S 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was not maintainable, as special procedure has been provided U/S 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. The Apex Court also held that the matter could not be re-agitated before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further observed no doubt Section 11 of the C.P.C. does not in terms apply because the Deputy Registrar is not a court but a tribunal constituted under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Ac, 1960 is given special jurisdiction. The principle laid down there-under mutatis mutandis squarely applies to the procedure provided under the Act, it operates as res judicata. 8. The facts of the above cited case are fully applicable to the facts of the case at hand. 9. Likewise, in U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 special provision for settlement of disputes has been given in Section 70 of the Act, which 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 (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 oficer, agent or employee of the society, including any past oficer, agent or employee; or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any oficer, agent or employee or any past oficer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heir or legal representative of any deceased oficer, 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:” 10. Thus, sub-clause (c) of sub-section(1) of Section 70, specifically provides that any dispute between the society or employee arises, the same shall be referred to the Registrar for action and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any such dispute, other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of the society. In the case at hand the dispute between the society and the employee was with regard to payment of D.A. and the employees had moved application before the Assistant Registrar of the Society and the said application/case was rejected by the Assistant Registrar, hence in view of above provision, the decision of the Assistant Registrar had become final. Therefore, principle of res judicata operates and the orders dated 21-10-97 and 25-4-1998 passed by learned Labour Court are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the learned Labour Court are set aside.