(Ashok Bhushan, C.J. for himself and for A.M.Shaffique, J.)

This Larger Bench has been constituted on a reference dated 15.12.2014 made by a Three Judge Bench. While hearing the Writ Appeals, a Division Bench expressed its doubt regarding the correctness of an earlier Division Bench Judgment reported in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian (2010 [1] KLT 938). The Division Bench referred the matter for consideration by a Full Bench vide its order dated 08.12.2010. Before the Division Bench in the Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions, the challenge was to the proceedings/orders passed by the State Government and Labour Courts in exercise of the jurisdiction under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1947 Act”). Appellants/Writ Petitioners are Co-operative Banks, i.e., Central Co-operative Societies who challenged the orders/proceedings under the 1947 Act on the ground that the proceedings initiated by the employees of the Cooperative Societies under the 1947 Act are without jurisdiction since jurisdiction under the 1947 Act is excluded by virtue of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1969 Act”). The Division Bench in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian (supra) held that jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court under the 1969 Act and Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court under the 1947 Act is concurrent. The Division Bench expressed its doubt over the view taken in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Co-operative Society v. Michael Sebastian (supra) in the following words:

“The question raised in the connected writ appeals is whether industrial dispute between the management of a society and an employee should be settled before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to which it is referred by Government or whether it should be decided by the Arbitration Court under Section 69(2)(d) of the Cooperative Societies Act. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision in Thodupuzha Taluk General Marketing Coop. Society v. Michael Sebastian reported in (2010 (1) K.L.T. 938) held that both the Industrial Tribunal and Cooperative Arbitration Court have concurrent jurisdiction for settling industrial disputes between management and workers of a society. This position is also supported by a earlier single Bench decision of this Court reported in Board of Directors, Edava Service Co-operative Bank v. The Co-operative Arbitration Court and others (2008 (3) K.L.J 267). It is seen from the judgments that the Government Pleader conceded before the Division Bench that the amendment introduced in the year 2000 under Section 69(2)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act was not assented to by the President. However, before us, counsel appearing for the society and the Government Pleader submitted that amendment may be only clarificatory and even the original provision of Section 69 (1)(c) takes in industrial disputes between societies and employees and with these provisions of the Act got the assent of the President. Section 69(1)(c) of the Act will prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by virtue of the operation of Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India. We find force in the contention of the counsel because, if the amendment made in 2000 is only clarificatory in nature, then the original provision in the statue takes in all industrial disputes which have to be settled exclusively by Arbitration Courts constituted under the Co-operative Societies Act. Prima facie, we are not able to concur with the view expressed by the Division Bench that the Arbitration Court, Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts have concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. In our view, if the provision of the Co-operative Societies Act is valid, then the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court will not have jurisdiction in the matter and the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court will b