Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Sri S.K. Rai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri A.R. Dube, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent workman.

2. The leading petition No. 36355 of 2007 is against an award dated 29.3.2007 rendered by the labour Court and the connected petition is against an order dated 24.1.2008 passed for execution of the aforesaid award. With the consent of the parties, both the petitions are being disposed of and the necessary facts of the leading petition are being considered.

3. The respondent workman was appointed a Cadre Secretary and the Chief Executive of the Co-operative Society in 1976. He was placed under suspension on 11.3.1992 whereafter a charge-sheet levelling several charges, including for financial misdemeanour was served on him on 23.3.1993 and after holding a domestic enquiry, the District Administrative Committee, after examining the record, the report of the enquiry officer etc., passed a resolution on 23.4.1994 for his dismissal whereafter by order dated 31.5.1994 he was dismissed.

4. The respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Regional Administrative Committee which was dismissed vide order dated 28.3.1998. He, thereafter, caused an industrial dispute to be referred to the labour Court under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as “the Disputes Act”), as to whether his termination dated 31.5.1994 was justified. The Labour Court, Bareilly registered the dispute as Adjudication Case No. 19 of 1999 and after the parties had entered their defence, had accepted the reference holding that the dismissal was not justified and reinstated him with continuity of service but with 20% back wages vide its award dated 29th March, 2007 and published on 4.7.2007 which is impugned in this petition.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (here-in-after referred to as “the Societies Act”) is special enactment and a complete Code under which the dispute even with regard to the termination of an employee can be decided and in fact has been decided and the statutory appeal has been rejected and therefore the entire proceedings under the Disputes Act stood vitiated and therefore the award has to be quashed. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner and others, 2007(2) ADJ 25 (SC) which has also been followed by learned Single Judges of this Court in several cases including in the case of U.P. Co-operative Spinning Mills v. Ram Magan and another, 2007(10) ADJ 4.

6. Learned Counsel for the workman, however, has contended that the judgment in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. (supra) was rendered by the two learned Judges of the Apex Court without considering the effect of a Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 and therefore the judgment has to be ignored and this Court has to follow the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench.

7. No doubt if there are conflicting decisions of the Apex Court, then the High Court is obliged to follow the ratio laid down by the Larger Bench as held in Union of India v. Godfrey Philips; AIR 1986 SC 806 and State of Orissa v. Titagarh Paper Mills, AIR 1985 SC 1293. However, the Court firstly has to examine the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the two respective cases and find out the point of conflict between the two ratios, if any.

8. In Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank case (supra) the workman had approached the Labour Court for payment of ex-gratia under Section 6H of the Disputes Act and the Labour Court had accepted the claim which was upheld by this Court. It was urged on behalf of the Bank before the Apex Court that under the Societies Act read with the regulations, a full-fledged remedy had been