The judgment established the inapplicability of Act, 1936 to employees of Co-operative Societies and the lack of jurisdiction of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to disputes relating to service conditions of employees of Co-operative Societies.

Heard Sri S. N. Pandey and Sri M. P. Gupta, learned counsels for Co-operative Society-employer and Sri B. N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the workman.

2. Writ Petition No. 4444 of 1994 has been filed by petitioner, a Co-operative Society registered under U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1965"), aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.1993 (Annexure-10 to writ petition) passed by Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1936") holding petitioner-Society as a commercial establishment under U. P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1962") and, therefore, governed by Act, 1936. He has further directed petitioner-Society to pay Rs. 22,415.35 towards wages and an equal amount towards damages to the respondent-workman, Murari Lal Sharma.

3. The facts in brief are : The workman was employed as Supervisor of U. P. Co-operative Union and was terminated in 1970. The termination was challenged in Writ Petition No. 350 of 1970 but vide Judgment dated 9.3.1972 upholding termination this court held that termination from the post of Cooperative Supervisor is not bad but since he was also holding the office of Secretary-cum-Manager of Kshetriya Sahkari Samiti, Aliganj, Bareilly ; and if he was to be relieved therefrom, an order by competent authority to that effect had to be passed.

4. The Co-operative Society claimed that workman did not resume duty as Secretary and subsequently was terminated by Management's resolution dated 8.12.1973.

5. Respondent No. 1, the workman, however, filed application under Act, 1936 before Prescribed Authority claiming wages from 1.3.1974 to 31.10.1982. The application was registered as Case No. 93/P.W.A./1982. This application was opposed by petitioner-Cooperative Society but vide judgment dated 20.5.1987, workman's application was allowed. The Society was directed to pay a total sum of Rs. 58,923.10 to workman, Murari Lal Sharma. This order is under challenge in Writ Petition No. 17866 of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "first writ petition"). The order of Prescribed Authority was stayed by this Court vide interim order dated 12.5.1989.

6. Another application was filed by workman respondent No. 1 before Prescribed Authority, registered as Case No. 166/P.W.A./83. During pendency of this application, one more application was filed in the year 1984 claiming wages from 1.11.1983 to 31.10.1984 registered as Case No. 39/E.W.A./84. Both these applica#31;tions have been allowed by means of the order impugned in Writ Petition No. 4444 of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "second writ petition").

7. Thereafter the workman-respondent No. 1 filed some more cases claiming wages for different subsequent periods which were registered as Case No. 66/P.W.A./85, 61/P.W.A./91 and 65/E.W.A./92. When these cases were pending, this Court in Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Allahabad v. State of U. P. and others. 1997 (75) FLR 356, held that employees of cooperative societies are not entitled to move application under Section 15 of Act, 1936. In view of the above judgment, the workman was ordered to withdraw his applications filed before Prescribed Authority with liberty to file fresh application before the labour court. The workman accordingly withdrew all the aforesaid applications and thereafter for realization of wages from 1.11.1984 to 31.3.1992 filed application under Section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "Central Act, 1947") before Labour Court, Bareilly, registered as Misc. Case No. 67 of 1998. The employer-Society sought some amendment in the written statement which was allowed by labour court by order dated 12.12.2002. The workman filed Writ Petition No. 14907 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "third writ petition") challenging the aforesaid order of labour court.

8. So far as the first two writ petitions are concerned, the issue, whether