Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—All the batch of the Petitions involves similar question of law. The Writ Petitions arise from different areas, though marginally facts are different but raise substantially similar issue of law. They can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 49561 of 2002 (Brahmawarta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd.,Kanpur v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal III, U.P. Kanpur, is a lead petition.

3. This petition is filed by the Brahmawarta Commercial Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kanpur through its Secretary under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. The petitioner has sought relief to quash the adjudication case No. 117 of 2001 pending before the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, III, U.P. Kanpur on the ground that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in respect of the employees of the co-operative Society. The brief facts of the case are as under.

5. The petitioner is a co-operative society, registered under the Provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (for short herein after referred to as 1965, Act). The petitioner is carrying on Banking business in terms of the Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Its area of operation is entire city of Kanpur. The provisions of the 1965 Act and the Rules framed thereunder are applicable to the petitioner.

6. The respondent No. 2 was the employee of the Bank. On 1.2.2001 the petitioner Bank dispensed with the services of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 aggrieved by the said action of the petitioners Bank raised an Industrial Dispute. The State Government referred the matter under Section 4 K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 to respondent No. 1 in the following terms :

“Kya Sewayojkon dwara shramik Shri Shiv Nath Katiyar, Lipik/cashier ko dinank 1.2.2001 ko karya se prithak/wanchit kiya jana uchit evam vaidhanik hai ? Yadi nahin, to sambandhit shramik kya hitlabh/chhatipurti pane ka adhikari hai? Kis thithi evam kis vivran ke sath?”

7. The petitioner filed its written statement before the respondent No. 1, the Tribunal and raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the reference itself inter alia on the ground that the services of the respondent No. 2 were governed by the provisions of the 1965 Act, and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. A copy of the written statement has been enclosed by the petitioner Bank as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

8. From the record it appears that without waiting any decision of the Tribunal the petitioner filed the present writ petition as on the same issue several writ petitions were entertained by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and interim orders have also been granted staying the further proceedings in those adjudication cases which were pending in the Tribunals/Labour Court pursuant to Reference made by the State Government under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.R. Mishra learned Senior Advocate and Sri O.P. Katiyar, Sri S.R. Verma and Sri A.P. Tewari and the learned Standing Counsel. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mishra, submitted that the petitioner Bank is registered under the Provisions of the 1965, Act. In the said Act the State Government has framed U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules. The State Government has also framed the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 which has been approved by the State Government under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The 1965, Act is a self contained Act, it provides full fledged remedy and mechanism to agitate grievance of the employees of the Co-operative Societies. Sri Mishra has further submitted that 1965, Act is a Special Enactment and the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is a general Act as the 1965, Act is a Special Act it will prevail over the general Act. For the said reasons the reference under the general Act, the U.P.