The jurisdiction of the Labour Court to decide disputes relating to termination of service of industrial employees of co-operative societies is not affected by Section 55(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a co-operative society. The business of the society is to provide facility for selling and marketing of milk. Respondent No. 1 gajanand was employed as a milk Tester by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is engaged in as industry and that the respondent is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The respondent's service were terminated on 25th September, 1979 after a domestic enquiry on certain charges of misconduct. The respondent took recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute relating to the validity of termination of the respondent's service was referred under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court, Indore. The petitioner took a preliminary objection before the Labour Court that in view of Section 55 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute. This objection was overruled by the labour Court by its order dated 10th December, 1980. It is that order which the petitioner challenges in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE question relating to the conflict of jurisdiction arising out of section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act was considered by a Full Bench of this court in R. K. M. S. Samiti, Durg v. Presi Officer [1975 MPLJ 583]. By a majority decision, this Court held that the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act occupy different fields and the adjudication of industrial disputes was not covered by section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In holding so, the Court pointed out that individual disputes to which Section 55 (2) would be attracted were not industrial disputes. The attention of the Court was also drawn to Section 2-A and Section 11-A added in the Industrial Disputes Act by Act No. 35 of 1965 and Act No. 45 of 1971 respectively by which individual disputes relating to discharges, dismissal retrenchment and termination of a workman have been brought within the definition of industrial dispute. Referring to these amendments, the Court held that the employees of the co-operative societies engaged in the industrial activities would be governed by the amended provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and would not be governed by section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act (See paragraph 19 at p. 605 of the report ). What the court meant to say was that if the dispute related to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of an employee who was a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, the resolution of that dispute would be governed by the provisions of that Act and not by Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The view so taken by the Court was on the basis of Article 254 (2) of the Constitution,

( 3 ) SECTION 55 (2) as it stood when the aforesaid Full Bench decision was rendered by this Court read as follows :"55. (2) Where a dispute including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the registrar or any officer appointed by him, not below the rank of assistant Registrar, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. "learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to the fact that new Section 55 has been substituted by Act No. 14 of 1976. Section 55 (2)as substituted by this Act reads as follows :"55. (2) Where a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a society arises between a society and its employees, it shall be referred to the Registrar or any other officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, the Registrar or such officer, as the case may be, shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees. "

( 4 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Article 25