ORDER

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were selected by the Selection Committee constituted in terms of U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 as in force then as clerks/cashiers. Appointment letters were issued to them on 28.4.1980 and they also reported to duty. Thereafter, by resolution made on 9.5.1980 the said recruitment was cancelled. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the Managing Committee of the Agra District Cooperative Bank Ltd. the appellant herein. The High Court, however, declined to interfere with the action and asked the parties to work out their respective alternative remedies under law. Thereafter, a dispute was raised before the labour court and the labour court declined to interfere on the ground that the High Court had already decided the matter. Again respondent Nos. 2 and 3 approached the High Court for appropriate reliefs and the High Court set aside the Award made by the labour court and remitted the matter to the labour court for fresh consideration on the merits of the matter. The labour court examined the matter on merits and came to the conclusion that the termination of services of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is invalid and directed their reinstatement with certain directions in relation to back wages. That Award was challenged before the High Court.

2. Three contentions were raised before the High Court; firstly that the selection process had not been done properly and in terms of the relevant regulations, therefore, the same is vitiated; secondly, it was stated that the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies who was one of the members of the Selection Committee, did not participate but his nominee participated in the selection process, therefore, the selection is vitiated; thirdly it is contended, a dispute under Section 70 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act should not have been raised in relation to termination of services of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and, therefore, the labour court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter.

3. On behalf of the contesting respondents all these three contentions have been countered very effectively.

4. So far as the regulations framed under the U.P. Cooperative Societies are concerned, the High Court, after examining the scheme thereof, came to the conclusion that the recruitment under Clause (vi) is independent of Clause (1), sub-clauses (iv) and (vii) and the relevant Clause (vi) reads as follows :

"(vi) Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (i) recruitment to the posts of typists and clerks in the lowest pay scales in a co-operative society shall be made by a Selection Committee constituted as under:

In the case of District/Central Co-operative Banks, District Co-operative Federations, wholesale Co-operative Consumers Stores, including Naya Bazars Uttar Pradesh Postal Employee s Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow and Oudh and Rohelkhand Railway Employees Co-operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow, the Selection Committee shall consist of:

(a) Chairman/Administrator of the appointing society who shall be Chairman of the Selection Committee. If Assistant Registrar of the District is Administrator, Deputy Registrar of the region shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committee;

(b) Assistant Registrar of the district, who shall be member of the Selection Committee; and

(c) Sachiv of the appointing society, who shall be convenor of the Committee."

5. The view taken by the High Court in this regard, prima facie appears to be correct.

6. So far as the second contention is concerned regarding non-participation of the Assistant Registrar in the selection process, the High Court noticed that under a Government order issued on 27.7.1979 if the Assistant Registrar is unable to participate in any such selection, he can nominate any other person and such nominee could participate in the selection process and that order was not under challenge before the Hig