( 1 ) RULE. Heard the learned advocates for the parties at length. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18. 1. 2001 below exh. 23 passed by the Board of Nominees, Ahmedabad in Lavad case no. 1643 of 1992 and the order dated 10th January, 2001 passed by the Gujarat State Co-operative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Revision Application no. 66 of 2000.

( 2 ) THE question for determination which arises in this case is whether the wages of officer or employees fixed by the resolution on the basis of some by-laws by a co-operative society will come within thepurview of section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 or not ? The respondent was paid arrears from 1. 1. 86 to 31st July, 1988 relating to the 4th Pay Commission since the State Government, adopted the pay scale of the Government and paid differences to all its employees. The Union has decided to pay as per the State Pay Scale from 1. 1. 1996 and has also decided to pay arrears and its employees and officers, but decided not to pay to those who have left the service. Admittedly, in the present case, the respondent has left the service and hence the provisions of the Government resoloution will not be applicable to the persons who are not in service as on 1. 4. 1991. The respondent filed Lavad suit before the Board of Nominees for difference of pay where the petitioner raised the question that the Board of Nominee has at all no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent employee. The Board of Nominee dismissed the objection raised by the petitioner and held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent. Against that order, the petitioner preferred a Revision Application before the Co-operative Tribunal. That Revision Application has also been dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the Board of Nominee is competent to entertain the suit proceedings as it is covered under the provisions of section 96 of the Act. It has been held by the Board of Nominee that the status of the plaintiff can be said to be that of an ex employee of the defendant society and therefore, as per the provisions of section 96 of the Act, he is just and proper party and in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent, the Board of Nominee has to examine the legality and validity of the implementation of the new pay scale and the resolution passed by the defendant Sangh in the case of the plaintiff and therefore, the nature of the dispute raised is apparently an administrative matter of the Sangh. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Division Bench in the case reported in AIR 1984, 419, Bombay, wherein it has been held as under:"we may now summarise our findings briefly as follows: (1) A claim which is not entertainable by a Civil Court under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot also be entertained by a Registrar or other authority under section 91 of the Co-operative Societies Act. Such a claim will include a claim by an employee for reinstatement in theservice of his previous employer and/or a claim by an employee for alteration of the conditions of service. Such a claim could only be entertained and decided by the adjudication authorities under the relevant Industrial Law. (2) Any dispute, therefore, involving such a claim is not one touching the management or the business of a society. (3) A question such as the payment of wages on account of the termination of theservices by a co-operative society will also not be the subject matter of a dispute touching the "business" of a co-operative society (See para 32 read with para 14 (ii) of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat State Co-operative Banks case. ). (4) However, a claim based upon contracts between the employees of a co-operative society and the society or claims for damages arising out of breach of such contracts can be part of a dispute touching the "management" of a co-operative society within the meanin