Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri K.N.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri U.C.Kesarvani, learned counsel for the respondents, and perused the record.

2. In both these matters, common question involved is, whether Prescribed Authority, under Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1936”) has jurisdiction to entertain claim of an employee of a Co-operative Society or whether remedy to such an employee lie only under Section 70 of U.P. Co-operative Societies, Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1965”) and not under any labour law. In other words, whether Act, 1936 and mode of adjudication of dispute provided therein are available for redressal of grievance to the employees of a Co-operative Society.

3. Before entering into the controversy on merits, I may place on record brief facts for better understanding of the matter.

4. In Writ Petition No. 33548 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “first petition”) one Moti Lal Maurya, an employee of Sikta Mahoogarh Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, Sikta, Post Office Pawanri Kalan-Halia, District Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as “co-operative society”) filed an application under Section 15 of Act, 1936 read with Section 18 of U.P. Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1962”) and Section 22-F of Minimum Wages Act, 1948, before Prescribed Authority, alleging that his wages have not been paid wrongfully for certain period i.e. from 1.1.1994 to 31.7.1995, which collectively amount to Rs. 31,639.86 and, therefore, the aforesaid amount be directed to be paid alongwith compensation to the extent of 10 times of unauthorized non payment/illegal deduction. The Co-operative Society filed objection/written statement contesting the application and said that application was not maintainable under Act, 1976.

5. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 31.8.1998 has held that employee was entitled for payment of Rs. 31639.86 towards unauthorized deduction and 10 times sum towards compensation. It, accordingly, directed co-operative society to pay Rs. 3,48,838.46 to the employee, Moti Lal Maurya. With respect to applicability of Act, 1936 Prescribed Authority has relied on a decision of Rajasthan High Court in The Nagpur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Competent Authority, Wages Act, Bikaner and another, 1994(69) FLR 209, to hold that cooperative society is a shop and commercial establishment under Act, 1962 and therefore, Act, 1948 is applicable thereupon and that is how it also comes within the jurisdiction of Act, 1936. The order dated 31.8.1998 of Prescribed Authority is under challenge in the first writ petition.

6. The Writ Petition No. 33579 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “second petition”) also relates to the same parties and claim for wages set up by Moti Lal Maurya, the employee of Cooperative Society, relates to the period 1.8.1995 to 31.7.1996. All other facts are same except that order of Prescribed Authority is dated 16.1.2001 whereby it has allowed payment of Rs. 22,744.62 towards unauthorized deduction and twice the amount as compensation i.e. Rs. 45,489.24, total of which comes to Rs. 68,233.86.

7. In my view, the matter is now covered by the judgment of Apex Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank v. Additional Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 and, therefore, it would not be necessary to delve into various provisions of Act, 1936 and Act 1962 or Act, 1948. The matter can be examined from the angle of Section 70 and 135 of Act, 1965 and the decision of Apex Court in the above case.

8. Section 70 and 135 of Act, 1965 reads as under:

“70. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any dispute relating to the constitution, management or business of a co-operative society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken against a paid servant of a society arises :

(a) among members, past member