Honble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for quashing the award dated 24.6.1995 (Annexure-l to the Writ Petition) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), U.P., Meerut (respondent No. 1).

2. Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties.

3. It appears that by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993, reference of an alleged industrial dispute was made to the respondent No. 1, which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 192 of 1993.

4. The alleged dispute referred was as to whether removal/depreviation of the workman-Virendra Pal Singh (respondent No. 2) from work with effect from 30.6.1985 by the employer (petitioner) was proper and legal, and if not, as to what benefits/ reliefs the concerned workman was entitled to and with what other details.

5. Written Statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner (employer) in the said Adjudication Case, inter alia, stating that the termination of services of the respondent No. 2 (workman) was perfectly legal; and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question; and that the services of the respondent No. 2 (workman) were governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, which came into force on 6.1.1976.

6. The respondent No. 2 (workman) filed written statement, inter alia, stating that the U.P. Rajya Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. (petitioner) was an apex level society or State level Cooperative Society registered under Section 4 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; and that the services of the employees of the said Bank were governed by the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975 as well as the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and that the services of the respondent No. 2 (workman) had been terminated in violation of Section 6­N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Rule 42 of the Rules framed under the said Act. Copy of the said Written Statement filed by the respondent No. 2 (workman) in the said Adjudication Case has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 2 in the present Writ Petition.

7. The respondent No. 2 (workman) filed his rejoinder in reply to the Written Statement filed by the petitioner (employer) in the said Adjudication Case. The petitioner (employer) also filed its rejoinder in reply to the written statement filed by the respondent No. 2 (workman).

8. Evidence was led by both the parties in the said Adjudication Case.

9. By the award dated 24.6.1995, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court (I), Meerut-respondent No. 1 held that the removal/deprivation of the workman (respondent No. 2) from work with effect from 30.6.1985 was not proper and legal, and the respondent No. 2 (workman) was entitled to be reinstated with continuity of his past services with effect from the date of the termination of his services as well as with the entire past wages and other benefits. Copy of the said award has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.

10. Against the said award, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

11. I have heard Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Y.S. Bohra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, and perused the record.

12. It is submitted by Shri K.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner that the reference made to the Labour Court by the Government Order dated 3.11.1993 as also the proceedings before the Labour Court and the impugned award dated 2.6.1995 given by the Labour Court were totally without jurisdiction, as the respondent No. 2 ought to have taken resort to the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and not to the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is submitted that in view of the provisi