The special law's limitation period must be treated differently from that under the Limitation Act, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be attracted in the absence of any express contrary provision under the special act.

( 1 ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of LPA No. 90/2002, (Gwalior Dugdha Sangh Sahkari Maryadit and Anr. v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma and Ors. ).

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismissal of his writ petition, to quash the order dated 28-8-2000 of M. P. S. Co-operative Tribunal confirming the finding of the First Appellate Court regarding limitation in respect to the application of respondent No. 1, and it's order of remand of the case for further trial to the Dy. Registrar, the petitioner society has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of Nagpur.

( 3 ) FACTS in brief are that the respondent No. 1, who was an employee of the petitioner Co-operative Society had filed a writ in the High Court, challenging his transfer to Ambikapur, which was allowed and leave to appeal against that order, was also dismissed by the Hon. Apex Court. Subsequently, after rejection of his claim under Industrial Disputes Act, by the Labour Court, he had filed, an application before the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Gwalior on 7-10-1998 along with the application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, for wages of the period from 3-10-1992 to 15-3-1994 i. e. the date on which, he was relieved under the above referred order of his transfer and till the date, he was taken back on duty after the order of his transfer was quashed by this Court. The respondent No. 1, in his application had mentioned that it was an application referring the dispute under Section 55 of the M. P. Cooperative societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as to the Act ). The learned Dy. Registrar, after hearing the parties, held that the application of respondent No. 1, was barred by limitation. On appeal, the appellate Court, held that it was not barred by limitation and remanded the case back to Dy. Registrar. In Second appeal, the order of first appellate Court, was maintained, thereafter, the appellants challenging the order of appellate Court moved a writ petition under Article 226 as well 227 of the Constitution of India, which was dismissed, vide impugned order.

( 4 ) IT is contended on behalf of appellants, relying upon the decision rendered in the case of Ramjati Sharma v. M. P. Co-operative Societies and Others, reported that there was no provision for extension of limitation prescribed under Section 55 of the Act and as the Act does not provide for application of provisions of Section 5 or 14 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation so provided could not be extended. It was also contended by learned counsel for the appellants that learned Single Judge has wrongly treated the dispute raised by respondent No. 1, before Dy. Registrar as a dispute, also falling under Section 64 of the Act, wherein, the period of limitation provided was Six years and that therefore, dispute raised by respondent No. 1, was not time barred.

( 5 ) AS far as the first contention is concerned, the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Mukri Gopalan v. Cheppilat Puthanpurayil, Aboobacker, has observed that where any special law prescribes the period of limitation for filing any appeal or application etc. and in the absence of any provision of limitation under the Limitation Act for such application/ appeal etc. the period of limitation provided under the Special Act, must be treated to be different from that under the Limitation Act and as a consequence, Section 5 of Limitation Act, will be automatically attracted to such applications or appeal in the absence of any express contrary provision under the Special Act. In this respect, it was argued by learned counsel for appellants that the law as laid down in this case could not be applied to the present case as in the present case, the limitation prescribed was for reference of a dispute to be decided by the Registrar or Dy. Registrar and not for moving an application of any kind.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing both the sides, we are of the opinion that this argument advanced by the learned Sr. couns