ORDER : 1. The core issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction to pass an award on the reference of dispute raised by an employee of Cooperative Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act? 2. Petitioner who had raised the dispute, was found to be a workman and it was also found that he had completed more than 240 days prior to his being to his removed from service and also that there had been non compliance of Section 25-F of Act of 1947. The respondent-society was found to be coming within the meaning of definition of industry in terms of Section 2(S) of the Act but the Labour Court refuse to grant relief on the ground of maintainability, in view of judgment passed by this Court in the case of Sawai Madhopur Cooperative Marketing Society Vs. Rajasthan State Cooperative Tribunal; 1979(2) RLR 555. 3. The view taken by this Court in the aforesaid judgment of service matters being dealt with under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 shall be deemed to be over ruled impliedly in view of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Cooperative Housing Finance Corporation Limited Vs. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhandange; 2017(5) SCC 623 wherein it has been held as under:- “8. We may state at the outset that it was conceded at the Bar that if the employee of a cooperative society is covered by the definition of ‘workman’ within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and claims a relief of reinstatement, in that event the Cooperative Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain such a claim, inasmuch as, relief of reinstatement cannot be granted by the Cooperative Court. Such a relief can only be granted by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act having regard to the fact that special and complete machinery for this purpose is provided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court stands ousted. This is so held by this Court consistently in a number of judgments[2]. This is so held by this Court consistently in a number of judgments[2]. These observations are made on the premise that even if it is accepted that the Cooperative Court established under the Act is a substitute of a Civil Court, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to grant relief would not go beyond the jurisdiction which has been vested in the Civil Court. When admittedly the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to grant any such relief and its jurisdiction is barred in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment, as a fortiorari, the jurisdiction of the Cooperative Court shall also stand barred. 10. Even when the employees falling under any of the aforesaid three categories raise dispute qua their termination, the Civil Court is not empowered to grant reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the first two categories, by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the case may be, and in the third category, it would be under the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee who does not fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot claim reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the Civil Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages for such wrongful termination of services. Admittedly, the appellant Corporation is not a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. The respondent also cannot be treated as a Government/public servant as he was not under the employment of any Government. He was also not ‘workman’ under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as Manager with the appellant Corporation. 4. Learned counsel for respondents also points out that the Labour Court has relied on the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of R.C. Tiwari Vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation; 1997(5) SCC 125 . 5. The view taken therein has been distinguished by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment and it has been held in view of the law laid down earlier by the Apex Court that the dispute relating to service matters of employer and employee does not come within the disputes touching the management of business of a Society as envisaged under Section 75 of the Act of Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 as well as the new provision of Section 58 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001. 6. The Supreme Court has also noted that under the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, Registrar was given specific powers to examine service matters. The said provision is not existing in Rajasthan, thus the law is now settled by Supreme Court in 2017 (5) SCC 623 shall apply. In view thereof, the award dated 16.01.1999 refusing to grant relief to the petitioner is set aside. 7. In view of the findings of the Labour Court relating to non compliance of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947, the respondents society is directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service. However as there has been long gap between the date of raising of the dispute and disposal of this writ petition for which the none of the parties should be made to suffer, the intervening period would only be counted for continuity of service and fixation of salary or notional basis with actual wages to be paid from the date of award dated 16.01.1999. The exercise shall be for paying the arrears shall be done within period of three months from today. 8. The writ petition is allowed.