Judgment

SARKARIA, J.:- The appellant is the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. (hereafter referred to as the Bank). It is a Society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, as applicable to the erstwhile State of Saurashtra. According to the appellants writ petition, it is doing banking business. It has 127 branches spread all over the State of Gujarat. One of its branches is in Dasada, Surendranagar District. The Head Office of the Bank is at Ahmedabad.

2. The second respondent, Babu Bhai Negracha, was serving as an Additional Supervisor in the Dasada Branch of the Bank. His services were terminated by an order, dated February 21, 1962, by giving him one months pay in lieu of notice under Staff Regulation No. 15.

3. The Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, came into force from May 1, 1962, and the appellant-Bank, being a Society under the Co-operative Societies Act, came to be governed by the said Act.

4. By Notification No. BIR-1362-5-H, dated March 2, 1963, published in the Gujarat Gazette in March 1963, the Government of Gujarat directed under Section 2 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act 11 of 1947) that all the provisions of the said Act shall apply with effect from March 15, 1963 to the business of banking by Co-operative Banks in the Saurashtra and Kutch areas of the State registered and deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961.

5. Aggrieved by the termination of his services, the second respondent approached the appellants Dasada branch by a letter, dated August 20, 1962, stating that since his services were terminated illegally by way of victimisation, he should be reinstated in the service.

6. Thereafter, the second respondent filed an application in the Labour Court at Rajkot, alleging that his service had been illegally and maliciously terminated as an act of victimisation on account of his Trade Union activities. He prayed for setting aside the order of his termination of service and for reinstatement with full back wages.

7. The Bank filed a written statement, raising a preliminary objection that the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, under which the application was made by the respondent, was not applicable to its case, as it was a Co-operative Society governed by the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, under which only the Registrar or his nominee had jurisdiction to decide the dispute and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application of the second respondent.

8. By its order, dated June 11, 1963, the Labour Court overruled this objection and held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

9. The Bank then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court to challenge the order of the Labour Court. The High Court by a common judgment dated August 25, 1967 dismissed the writ petition. But in view of the importance of the question of law involved, granted a certificate of fitness for appeal to this Court.

10. On the strength of that certificate, the Bank has come in appeal before us against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.

11. In this Court, on January 22, 1969, the Bank made an application for leave to urge an additional ground, namely, that the Bank is not doing banking business, i.e. accepting for the purpose of lending or investment of deposits of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise, and withdrawable by cheque, draft, order or otherwise as defined in Section 5, Clauses (b) and (c) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949; and that this being the true position, the Notification No. DIR-1362-IV-H dated March 2, 1963, published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated March 7, 1963, under Section 2 (4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act XI of 1947) is not applicable to the appellant. This application was strenuously opposed by Shri Rama Reddy, who is assisting the Court as amicus curiae on behalf of the re