- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard Sri S. K. Rai, learned Counsel for the peti tioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Sri A. P. Dube, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent workman.
(2.) THE leading petition No. 36355 of 2007 is against an award dated 29. 3. 2007 rendered by the labour Court and the connected petition is against an order dated 24. 1. 2008 passed for execution of the aforesaid award. With the consent of the parties, both the petitions are being disposed of and the necessary facts of the leading petition are being considered. The respondent workman was appointed a Cadre Secretary and the Chief Executive of the Co- operative Society in 1976. He was placed under suspension on 11. 3. 1992 where after a charge-sheet levelling several charges, including for financial misdemeanour was served on him on 23. 3. 1993 and after holding a domestic enquiry, the District Administrative Committee, after examining the record, the report of the enquiry officer etc. , passed a resolution on 23. 4. 1994 for his dismissal where after by order dated 31. 5, 1994 he was dismissed. The respondent preferred a statutory appeal before the Regional Adminis trative Committee which was dismissed vide order dated 28. 3. 1998. He, thereaf ter, caused an industrial dispute to be referred to the labour Court under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as "the Disputes Act"), as to whether his termination dated 31. 5. 1994 was justified. The Labour Court, Bareilly registered the dispute as Adjudication Case No. 19 of 1999 and after the parties had entered their defence, had accepted the reference hold ing that the dismissal was not justified and reinstated him with continuity of ser vice but with 20% back wages vide its award dated 29th March, 2007 and pub lished on 4. 7. 2007 which is impugned in this petition.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the U. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (he re- in-after referred to as "the Societies Act") is special enactment and a complete Code under which the dispute even with regard to the termination of an employee can be decided and in fact has been decided and the statutory appeal has been rejected and therefore the entire proceedings under the Disputes Act stood vitiated and therefore the award has to be quashed. In support of his contention he has relied upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commis sioner and others, 2007 (2) ADJ 25 (SC) which has also been followed by learned Single Judges of this Court in several cases including in the case of U. P. Co operative Spinning Mills v. Ram Magan and another, 2007 (10)ADJ4. Learned Counsel for the workman, however, has contended that the judg ment in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. (supra) was rendered by the two learned Judges of the Apex Court without considering the effect of a Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Bangalore Water Suppy and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and others, AIR 1978 SC 548 and therefore the judgment has to be ignored and this Court has to follow the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench.;