The provisions of the Industrial Disputes Acts apply to Co-operative Societies unless Section 135 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, is enforced, and termination of services based on charges of corruption and financial irregularities requires an inquiry and an opportunity to defend, and a plea of loss of confidence must be founded on material facts and particulars.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri A. K Tripathi, learned cpunsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. P. Agarwel, learned Senir advocate representing the coatesting respondent No. 2 at length and in detail.

( 2 ) BY means of this petition under Article 226, of the Constitution of India, the award dated 10th July, 1984, rendered by the respondent No. 1 in Adjudication Case No. 29 of 1983, registered upon a reference by the state Government, is- under, challenge The impugned award holds the termination of the services of the respondent No, 2 to be illegal and impropes and directs his reinstatement with effect from lst June, 1982 on which date his services were terminated.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 was working as a Sales-man of the petitioner since l7th September, l978 and his services were dispensed with, with effect from 1st June, 1582, on the basis of the charge of alleged corruption and financial irregularities. It is not disputed that before termination of his services the respondent No. 2 was neither served with any chargesheet nor was he paid any retrenchment compensation. It is also not in dispute that no inquiry preceded the termination. In this backdrop the respondent No. I held the termination of the services of the respondent No. 2 to be illegal and improper and directed for his reinstatement.

( 4 ) RELYING upon Section 135 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter called the Act) Sri Tripathi, submits that the provisions of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 do not apply to the petitioner, which is a Co-operative Society and the entire proceedings before the respondent No. 1 were without jurisdiction. Thus the impugned award is liable to be set aside. Section 135 of the Act reads as follows :"135. Certain Acts not to apply to co-operative societies The provisipns contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, XIV of 1947), and the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U. P. Aet XVIII of 1947), shall not apply to Co-operative societies. "

( 5 ) IT is true that Section 135 of the Act excludes the applicability of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Co-operative Societies, but this Section has not been enforced as yet. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act envisages that the Act shall come into force from such date as the state Government, may hy notification in the Gazette, appoint in this behalf. Proviso to Section 1 authorises the State Government to declare that any provisions tb be specified in the declaration shall not come into force from such appointed date and in that event such provisions shall come into force from such date or dates as the State Government may similarly appoint in that behalf. By the Notification No, 9171-C/xii CA-1098-62 dated 30th december, 1967, Published in Uttar Pradesh Government Gazette (Extra ordinary) dated 31st December, 1967, the State Government, in exercise of the power under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act, declared that all the provisions of the Act, excluding Section 135 thereof, shall come into force with effect from January 26, 1968. No notification appointing the date of enforcement of the provisions of Section 135 has been produced before the Court. the position, therefore, is that provisions of Section 135 have not been enforced as yet. For so long as the provisions of the said section are hot enforced the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (Act XIV Of 1947), and U. P. industrial Disputes Act. 1947, (U. P. Act XVIII of 1947) to the Co-operative Societies, including the petitioner, cannot be excluded. The submission in this behalf is only betraying utter ignorance of the legal position. It is, therefore. rejected.

( 6 ) TO exclude the applicability of the provisions of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1941, learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the activities of the petitioner in connection with which the respondent n6. 2 was employed do riot fall within the meaning of e