( 1 ) THESE three petitions raise a question of importance as regards the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with industrial disputes to decide a dispute which arises between a Co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act and a servant of such Society. In Special Civil Application No. 585 of 1963 respondent No. 2 was working as an Additional Supervisor in the Dasada Branch of the petitioner who is the Gujarat State Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited. The services of respondent No. 2 were terminated by the petitioner and it was the case of respondent No. 2 that his services were terminated by way of victimization on account of his trade union activities. His case was also that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the order terminating his services was passed. For these grievances respondent No. 2 had written an approach letter on 20th August 1962 but his request was turned down. He therefore made an application to the Labour Court for quashing the order terminating his services and to reinstate him in the pay scale to which he would be entitled had his service not been terminated. He also prayed that the petitioner be ordered to pay to him the back wages from the date his services were terminated to the date of his reinstatement. In these proceedings before the Labour Court one of the contentions that was raised by the petitioner-Society was that the Bombay Industrial Relations Act under which the application was made by respondent No. 2 was not applicable to the case of the petitioner which was a Co-operative Society registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and that therefore the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the application of respondent No. 2. The Labour Court at Rajkot by its decision dated 11th June 1963 decided this issue against the petitioner and held that the Bombay Industrial Relations Act would apply to the case of the petitioner and that therefore the Labour Court had jurisdiction to hear and proceed with the application of respondent No. 2. The petitioner-Society challenges this order of the Labour Court and Mr. Nanavati appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that by virtue of sec. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 the jurisdiction to entertain and decide a dispute arising between the Society and its servant would vest in the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain and decide such a matter was barred. The second contention of Mr. Nanavati was that the second respondent was discharged from service by the petitioner Society on 21st February 1962 and that the Bombay Industrial Relations Act was applied in March 1963 to the business of banking in the Saurashtra area and that therefore the case would be governed by the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act that was applicable on the date when the services of respondent No. 2 were terminated. But this contention could not be seriously pressed as the head and registered office of the Bank was at Ahmedabad.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 640 of 1963 the petitioner the Jodiya Sarvodaya Motor Vahan Vyavahar Sahakari Mandali Ltd. is a society registered under the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act 1925 and that Society closed its business voluntarily. Applications were made by the respondents claiming that they were retrenched without being paid retrenchment compensation or notice pay. The retrenchment compensation and the notice pay were claimed under the relevant provision of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 In these applications a contention was raised by the petitioner Company that by virtue of sec. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 the Labour Court would not have jurisdiction to entertain hear and decide a dispute arising between the Co-operative Society and its servants. These applications that were filed under sec. 33c (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act we