JUDGMENT 1. - By the Writ Petition, challenge is made to the Order dated 29.5.2013 holding inquiry to be unfair and subsequent Award dated 3.10.2013 holding compulsory retirement of the respondent employee to be illegal. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the reference, two parties were impleaded as employer. First was primary Co-operative Society, which engaged the respondent and second is the petitioner herein. The reply to the statement of claim was submitted by the petitioner bank and had been adopted by the Primary Co-operative Society, who had engaged and passed the order of compulsory retirement. After the reply, the arguments were heard on fairness of the inquiry. The inquiry there upon held to be unfair vide Order dated 29.5.2013. The award was passed soon thereafter 3.10.2013 without providing an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the charges. It is more so, when an application was filed by the Primary Co-operative Society to provide them chance to lead evidence to prove charges. It was on declaring inquiry to be unfair vide Orderer dated 29.5.2013. The said application was not decided rather considered in the award itself, whereas the application aforesaid should have been decided prior to the award. The petitioner herein was expecting that the application of the Primary Co-operative Society would be decided. The inquiry would thereupon be held in the Labour Court itself. They did not move application under those circumstances. The Labour Court committed grave illegality be passing award without deciding the application prior to it. 3. The other ground is regarding maintainability of the reference. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complete machinery to resolve the dispute has been provided under the Rajasthan Co-operative Society Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act of 2001'). The reference of Sections 58 and 60 of the Act of 2001 has been given for it. In view of aforesaid, the reference was not maintainable under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as 'Act of 1847). A further reference of Rules of 2003 has been given wherein the Primary Co-operative Society can hold inquiry and pass order punishment. The order of punishment is appealable under the Rules of 2003. In the present case, no Appeal was preferred. In view of above also the reference under the Act of 1947 was not maintainable. A further reference of Rules of 2003 has been given wherein the Primary Co-operative Society can hold inquiry and pass order punishment. The order of punishment is appealable under the Rules of 2003. In the present case, no Appeal was preferred. In view of above also the reference under the Act of 1947 was not maintainable. To support the arguments, reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addition Labour Commissioner 61 Ors., reported in (2007) 11 SCC 756 , has been given. A further reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.C Tiwari v. M.P. State Co-operative Marketing Federation, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2652 , has been given. 4. In both the cases, the issue of jurisdiction under the Act of the 1947 was considered. It was held that if remedy is provided under the Co-operative Society, Act, there would be implied exclusion of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In view of the judgment aforesaid, the impugned award deserves to be quashed. The Labe: Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute which is covered under Section 58 of the Act of 2001. 5. Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the award. He submits that after hearing the arguments of fairness of inquiry, It was held to be unfair. The petitioner herein did not ask for chance to lead evidence to prove charges. In absence of an application, the arguments were heard followed by award on 5.10.2013. 6. So far the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is concerned, a reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad 61 Anr., reported in AIR 1979 SC 1203 , has been given. Therein the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 1947 has been maintained. The learned Counsel further made a reference to the proviso to Section 58 of the Act of 2001. The aforesaid provision does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 194". Accordingly, both objections raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner art not tenable. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for Primary Co-operative Society submits that the respondent-employee was in fact engaged by the petitioner Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Ajmer. The aforesaid provision does not exclude the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Act of 194". Accordingly, both objections raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner art not tenable. 7. The learned Counsel appearing for Primary Co-operative Society submits that the respondent-employee was in fact engaged by the petitioner Ajmer Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Ajmer. He was sent to society by way of posting. The action under challenge was taken as per the resolution of the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and not by the Primary Co-operative Society at their own. In view of above, the Primary Co-operative Society has nothing to do with the dispute though final order of compulsory retirement was passed by them, but it was as per resolution of the Central Co-operative Bank. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 9. The challenge is made to the order by which inquiry was declared unfair and subsequent award. It is on the ground of denial of opportunity to lead evidence to prove charges. It is admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that no application was moved by them to see permission to lead evidence before the Labour Court to prove the charges. They have however, rely on an application submitted the Primary Co-operative Society. The petitioner cannot rely to application submitted by other party. The application aforesaid was dealt with by the Labour Court in the award and has not been challenged by the Primary Co-operative Society. Thus, they are satisfied by order and award. It is otherwise settled law that permission to lead evidence to prove charges has to be prayed at the initial stage i.e. along with reply itself. Such an application cannot be made at a later stage and in any case not after declaring the inquiry to be unfair. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Lashmidevamma & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 2090 , wherein the judgment rendered in the case of Shambhu Nath Goyal v. Bank of Baroda & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 289 , has also been relied. 10. In view of the judgment referred above, the application submitted by the Primary Co-operative Society to permit them to lead evidence was not even maintainable after an order holding inquiry to unfair. AIR 1984 SC 289 , has also been relied. 10. In view of the judgment referred above, the application submitted by the Primary Co-operative Society to permit them to lead evidence was not even maintainable after an order holding inquiry to unfair. In any case,- the petitioner Central Co-operative Bank cannot rely on the application moved by the Primary Co-operative Society to their advantage when they did not submit an application for permission to lead evidence to prove charges while filing the reply or at any point of time before the arguments for fairness of inquiry. Thus, the first argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 11. The second issue pertains to the jurisdiction of Labour Court to adjudicate the dispute under the Act of 1947. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair to admit that the objection of jurisdiction was not raised before the Labour Court. It is neither, while filing the reply nor at the time of oral arguments. It is however submitted that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage being a legal issue. The reference of Sections 58 and 60 of the Act of 2001 has been given. Both the provisions are quoted thus:- "58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative Society arises. The reference of Sections 58 and 60 of the Act of 2001 has been given. Both the provisions are quoted thus:- "58. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative Society arises. (a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and decreased members, or (b) between a member, past member or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society, or (c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, or (d) between the society and any other co-operative society, or (e) between the society and the surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, or a person other than a member who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom the society has or had transaction under Section 52, whether such a surety is or is not a member of a society, such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute : Provided that such disputes between the society and its employees, for which a remedy is available under the provisions of the service laws application on the employees, shall not be entertained under the section. (2) For the purpose of sub-section (1), the following disputes shall also be deemed to be the disputes touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative Society, namely (a) a claim by the society for any debt or demand due to it from a member or the nominee, heirs or regal representatives of a deceased member, whether such debt or demand be admitted or not; (b) a claim by a surety against the principle debtor where the society has recovered from the surety any 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, whether such debt or demand is admitted or not; (c) any dispute arising in connection with the election of any officer of the society : Provided that no dispute under this clause shall be entertained during the period commencing from the announcement of election programme and ending on the declaration of the results. (3) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under the section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Co-operative Society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court." "60. Reference of dispute to arbitration.-(I) The Registrar may, on receipt of the reference of a dispute under Section 58,- (a) decide the dispute himself, or (b) transfer it for disposal to any person who has been invested by the Government with powers in that behalf, or (c) refer it for disposal to an arbitrator having the eligibility, prescribed therefor. (2) The Registrar may withdraw any reference transferred or referred for disposal under sub-section (1) and either decide it himself or transfer or refer it again for disposal to another person or arbitrator mentioned in Clause (b) or (c) of that sub-section, if the person or arbitrator, to whom the dispute was first transferred or referred, - (i) dies, resigns or it transferred; or (ii) has become incapable or acting or against whom a complaint has been received regarding his misconduct or corruption; or (iii) neglects or refuses to act. (3) The Registrar or any other person to whom a dispute is referred for decision under this section may, pending the decision of the dispute, make such interlocutory order as he may deem necessary in the interest of justice." 13. A perusal of the Section 58 reveals as to what type of the disputes can be referred for arbitration. Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 58 does not bar for the remedy under the provision of service law applicable to the employees. In view of proviso, the dispute between the employer and employee regarding order of compulsory retirement can very well be adjudicated under the service law and in the present case, the Act of 1947. For the aforesaid reason, no objection of jurisdiction seems to have taken before the Labour Court. 14. It would be necessary to refer that earlier to the order of compulsory retirement, the respondent employee was terminated from service. He approached the authority under the Rajasthan Shop and Commercial Establishment Act. The adjudication was made on merit without an objection of remedy under the Act of 2001 or the previous repeal act. The termination order was set aside by the authority and challenge to order in a Writ Petition and Appeal before the Division Bench remains un-successful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not interfere in the order of the Division Bench. In view of above, earlier also the respondent had taken the remedy other than what is provided under the Act of 2001 or the repeal act without any objection by the petitioner. The reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P.R. Mankad & Anr. would be relevant. The order of removal from service was brought before the Labour Court and objection regarding remedy under the Bombay Co-operative Society Act was not accepted by die Hon'ble Supreme Court. The ground of victimisation was raised by the employee therein and after a detail discussion on the issue, it was held that a reference under the Act of 1947 is maintainable. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Samuyan Vyavasthapak Union v. Judge Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan & Anr., sported in 1984 RLR 754, took a similar view. 16. 15. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Samuyan Vyavasthapak Union v. Judge Industrial Tribunal, Rajasthan & Anr., sported in 1984 RLR 754, took a similar view. 16. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari (supra). If the facts of that case are considered, plea of res-judicata was raised because after dismissal of the service, the Registrar upheld the finding regarding misconduct of the petitioner. Therein it was held that for challenge to the order of Co-operative Society, machinery for adjudication is provided under Co-operative Society Act, hence, Section 10 of the Act of 1947 would not apply. There it was categorically held that Section 64 of Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Society Act exclude the jurisdiction of other Acts. If the facts of this case in reference to Section 58 are considered, no such bar exists; rather proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 58 provides application of service rules in regard to dispute between the society and the employees. The Act of 2001 rather excludes the jurisdiction provided therein so as to make room for service laws applicable to the employee. 17. In the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner 61 Ors., (supra) the dispute between parties was quite different. It was regarding ex-gratia payment to the employees and referring to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Society Act, 1965, the issue was decided. 18. In the instance case, Sections 58 and 60 of the Act of 2001 has been referred. Those provisions do not cast bar for exercise of jurisdiction by any authority rather excludes the jurisdiction under the Act of 2001 if service rules are applicable. 19. In the light of the provisions aforesaid, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Act of 1947 would be excluded. It is necessary to add here that Rajasthan State Co-operative Society Act, 2001 is State legislation whereas the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is Central legislation. In the case of repugnancy between two legislation, what will prevail is the Central legislation. The exclusion of Central legislation cannot be taken impliedly. 20. The case in hand is covered by the judgment in the case of The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (supra). In the case of repugnancy between two legislation, what will prevail is the Central legislation. The exclusion of Central legislation cannot be taken impliedly. 20. The case in hand is covered by the judgment in the case of The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (supra). Therein also the order of dismissal was challenged on the ground of the victimisation as is the present case. It was projected by the respondent that after his earlier termination, when petitioner bank could not succeed, the respondent employee was subjected to compulsory retirement immediately thereupon. Such an issue can very well be determined under the Act of 1947. It is more so when the power to Labour Court under the Act of 1947 are quite extensive. The Labour Court can hear and decide the issue of fairness of inquiry and in case the prayer to lead evidence to prove charges is made at the first instance, an opportunity can be given to the employer to lead evidence to prove charges before it, on declaring inquiry to be unfair, in that case, the inquiry would be held before the Labour Court followed by a finding. 21. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the objection of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in regard to jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 22. In view of discussion above, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order holding inquiry to be unfair so as the award. It is for the reason that once the inquiry is held to be unfair, nothing remains against the employee because after holding inquiry to be unfair, the finding of inquiry officer so as the inquiry' goes and in that case, nothing remains adverse to the employee.The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order for cost.Petition dismissed. *******