Venkatadri, J.

These writ appeals are preferred by the South Arcot Co-operative Motor Transport Society, Ltd., for ex-servicemen, Cuddalore, against the common over passed by Ramachandra Ayyar, J. (as he then was), dismissing their petitions to quash the order of the presiding officer, labour court, Madras, in C.P. Nos. 746, 747 and 748 of 1957.

The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of these appeals are the following. The appellant-society is a society registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932. It is engaged in running lorries and motor transport services in South Arcot district. The society is intended solely for ex-servicemen, who alone are entitled to be admitted as members of the society. Respondent 1 in these appeals were employed either as drivers or electricians in the transport service of the appellant-society.

In 1957 the society decided to close down the lorry service and confine its activities to motor transport only. As a consequence thereof the society had to discharge some of its personnel. Accordingly by proceedings dated 16 November, 1957, the society dispensed with the services of five persons including respondent 1 in these appeals (Syed Batcha, Appadurai and Kannan). These three persons filed applications under S.33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, before the Labour Court, Madras, claiming retrenchment compensation and earned leave wages accumulated after the date of discharge.

The society resisted these applications on various grounds, the main objections being that the labour court is not competent to take cognizance of the dispute between the society and its servants and that the remedy of the discharged persons is only to apply under S. 51(1)(c) of the Madras Co-operative Societies Act VI of 1932, to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for settlement of the disputes. The presiding officer, labour court, held that he had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question and that Syed Batcha, Kannan and Appadurai, respondent 1 in these appeals, were entitled to retrenchment compensation and accordingly awarded retrenchment compensation according to the provisions of the Act.When the appellant-society filed writ petitions in this Court against the order of the labour court, Ramachandra Ayyar, J., agreed with the view taken by the labour court that it had jurisdiction to decide the dispute and held that under the Co-operative Societies Act, the arbitrator cannot adjudicate the claims of the workers which arise under the Industrial Disputes Act, namely, retrenchment compensation, under S.25F of the Act, and finally dismissed the writ petitions filed by the society.

It is against this order the society has preferred these appeals for determination of the crucial questions, namely, whether the labour court has got jurisdiction to settle disputes between the society and its erstwhile employees.

In order to decide the question it is necessary for us to refer in detail to the constitution and composition of the society and its bylaws, especially those relating to the service conditions of the employees of the society. The objects of the society are mainly to promote the economic interests of the members of the society and to find suitable and profitable employment for them by running motor transport services and to give training to its members in motor driving mechanism and body-building and other subsidiary occupations connected with the automobile industry. The capital of the society is Rs. 2, 50, 000 made up of 5, 000 shares of Rs. 50 each. Bylaws 7(a) provides that every member shall take at least one share but no member shall take more than 100 shares. That bylaws also prescribes the number of shares to be taken by different classes of employees, such as cleaners, peons, watchmen, drivers and fitters, accountants, clerks, mechanics, assistant managers, etc. I effect that by-laws says that all the employees will have to be shareholders in the society. Bylaw 19(a) r