Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 29.4.1997 and 18.2.2000 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Basti.

2. Sri Hemant Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Prescribed Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 has no jurisdiction to entertain a claim for award of wages in respect of a Co-operative Society, inasmuch as a Co-operative Society is not an “establishment” within the meaning of the term as defined in Section 2(ii) (ag) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. He has cited before me a decision of the Learned Single Judge of this Court in Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies U.P. Allahabad v. State of U.P. and others, 1997 (2) UPLBEC 159, wherein, this Court has passed the following orders:

“Heard counsel for the petitioner.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.5.1995 annexure-1 to the writ petition. The respondent No. 3 was employed as Secretary of a Co-operative Society and he made an application under Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act. In my opinion, the payment of Wages Act does not at all apply in this case. Section 1(4) of the said Act states that the Act will apply to persons employed in a factory or in railway administration or to establishments covered by Section 2 (ii) (ag).

The petitioner is not covered by any of the aforesaid clauses of Section 2 of the Act. Hence the Payment of Wages Act has no application at all. The remedy if any, of the petitioner was to apply under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act or Section 6-H (2) of the U.P. Industrial Dispute Act.

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.5.1995 is hereby set aside.”

3. However, while the learned Single Judge in the above referred case had held that the petitioner may apply under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or Section 6-H (2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the legal position in this regard has also now been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner.

4. The Supreme Court in the case in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Additional Labour Commissioner and others, (2007) 11 SCC 756, has held that matter relating to conditions of service of employees of Co-operative Societies shall be governed by the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 and the rules framed thereunder and the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain disputes relating to such employees.

Para 45 of the Supreme Court judgment reads as follows:

“45. The general legal principle in interpretation of statutes is that ‘the general Act should lead to the special Act’. Upon this general principle of law, the intention of the U.P legislature is clear, that the special enactment UP Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 alone should apply in the matter of employment of Co-operative Societies to the exclusion of all other Labour Laws. It is a complete code in itself as regards employment in co-operative societies and its machinery and provisions. The general Act the UPID Act, 1947 as a whole has and can have no applicability and stands excluded after the enforcement of the UPCS Act. This is also clear from necessary implication that the legislature could not have intended ‘head-on-conflict and collision’ between authorities under different Acts. In this regard reference can be made to Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. and others v. The Additional Industrial Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and others, (1969) 2 SCC 43, where this Court observed that:

“Applying these tests, we have no doubt at all that the dispute covered by the first issue referred to the Industrial Tribunal in the present cases could not possibly be referred for decision to the Registrar under Section 61 of the Act. The dispute related to alteration of a number of conditions of service of the wo