( 1 ) THIS Reference has been placed before this Full Bench as per the order of the Chief justice, dated September 16, 2003, and has come up before us today.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts in brief are: the writ petitioners were in the employment of the second respondent, shimoga District Co-operative Bank (hereinafter called the 'society') registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies act, 1959 (for short the C. S. Act ). They retired from service on attaining the age of. superannuation after September 24, 1997. Their terminal benefits were settled and gratuity was paid as per the Karnataka co-operative Society Rules (for short the C. S. Rules ). The petitioners submitted a, representation before the Society for payment of more amount of gratuity as per the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter called the p. O. Act) as amended by Act 11 of 1998 Act. The same was rejected as per Endorsement dated November 28, 2000 (Annexure 'j' ). Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petitions to quash the said endorsement and to issue mandamus to the respondents to pay gratuity as per provisions of Section 4 of the p. G. Act.

( 3 ) THE learned single Judge on consideration found that in view of the notification issued under the Mysore Shops and establishments Act, 1948 (for short 1948 Act), which has continued even after the Karnataka shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (for short 1961 Act), the P. G. Act is not applicable to the Society. Hence the learned single Judge felt that the decision of the Division bench in Malleshwaram Co-operative Society ltd. v. Senior Labour Inspector 1999-I-LLJ-1326 (Kant) required reconsideration and referred the matter to a larger Bench by order dated January 3, 2002. Thereafter, matters were placed before another Division Bench, which also felt that the decision of the Division bench required reconsideration as notification had been issued under the 1948 Act which was repealed, and the 1961 Act has been re-enacted and its provisions are inconsistent with those of the 1948 Act. Accordingly, it referred the matter to a larger Bench, by order dated September 16, 2002, to consider the question as to whether the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in malleshwaram Co-operative Society's case requires reconsideration as stated.

( 4 ) SRI Ranganath S. Jois, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the second respondent is not exempt from the provisions of the P. G. Act and the notification issued under the 1948 Act, which was repealed, would not survive but would become inoperative as the provisions of the 1961 Act are inconsistent with those of the 1948 Act and hence the decision of the Division Bench does not lay down the correct law and a co-operative society is also governed by the P. G. Act.

( 5 ) SRI G. Chandrashekaraiah, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-society submitted that the decision of the Division Bench does not require reconsideration as it has correctly laid down the law and a Co-operative Society is not governed by the provisions of the P. G. Act.

( 6 ) SRI M. N. Sheshadri, learned High court Government Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the notification issued under the 1948 Act would not continue to operate only if the provisions of the 1961 Act are inconsistent, as repeal would extinguish the earlier Act and orders issued thereunder and the Government has not issued any notification under the 1961 Act.

( 7 ) WE have given anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the orders of reference made by the learned single Judge and the Division Bench and the decision of the division Bench of this Court in Malleshwaram co- operative Society's case (supra ).

( 8 ) THE short question for consideration before us is whether the notification issued under an Act which has been repeated will continue or not. Admittedly, the new Act came into force from S