O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) By means of the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is prayed that the award dated July 31, 1998, Annexure 1 to the writ petition, published on February 11, 1999, be quashed. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate has put in appearance. He maintained that since the order dated November 21, 19% terminating the services of the respondent No. 2 has been held to be illegal and unjustified and the workman has been reinstated in service with full back wages, along with Rs. 500 as cost, the petitioner be required to comply with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) Shri H.R. Misra, appearing on behalf of the petitioner urged that the reference under Section 4-K of the Act and the award made pursuant to the reference, aforesaid, is illegal and not binding on the petitioner for one simple reason that in view of the provisions of Section 135 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1965') the provisions contained in the Act are not applicable to the employees of a registered Co-operative Society. It was prayed that this Court has taken the view in a number of writ petitions and has passed interim orders staying the operation of the awards on the ground that the provisions of Section 135 of the Act of 1965 exclude the jurisdiction of Labour Courts, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Vikramaditya Pandey v. Industrial Tribunal II and Anr. (1998-III-LLJ (Suppl)-349) (All) and Arvind Kumar Agarwal v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1998 I CLR 971 (All.) Sri H.R. Misra pointed out that the law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions still holds the field and, therefore, the award which has been challenged in this writ petition cannot be enforced on the ground that the reference as well as the award concerning the employees of the registered co-operative societies are illegal and without jurisdiction. Sri Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has repelled the above submission. It was pointed out that the law, as it stands, is that the employees of the U.P. Co-operative Societies are governed by the provisions of the Act and that the exclusion provision contained in Section 135 of the Act of 1965 has not yet been given effect to by making a notification as required under the Act.
(3.) I have given thoughtful consideration to the matter. Section 135 of the Act of 1965 deals with non-application of certain Acts to Co-operative Societies. It provides that:" The provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act No. XIV of 1947) and the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (U.P. Act No. XVIII of 1947) shall not apply to the Co-operative Societies." This provision obviously excludes the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Co-op. Societies but this section has not been enforced. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1965 envisages that the Act shall come into force from such date as the State Government may by notification in the gazette, appoint in this behalf. Proviso to Section 1 authorises the State Government to declare that any provision to by specified in the declaration shall not come into force from such appointed date and in that event such provision shall come into force from such date or dates as the Government may similarly appoint in that behalf. By notification dated December 30, 1967, published in the U.P. Government Gazette (Ext. Ordinary) dated December 31, 1967, the State Govern-ment in exercise of power under Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act of 1965 declared that all the provisions of the Act excluding Section 135 thereof shall come into force w.e. f. January 26, 1968. No notification appointing, the date of! enforcement of the provisions of Section 135 of the Act has yet been made. This position, therefore, is undisputed and beyond the pale of challenge that the provisions of Section 135 of the Act of 1965 have not been enforced as yet. In the case of Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Basantpur Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Anr. 1993 (67) FLR 87, it has been held that so long as the provisions of Section 135 are not enforced, the applicability of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act to the Co-operative Societies, cannot be excluded. The submission that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act are not attracted to the co-operative societies was rejected as it betrayed utter ignorance: of the legal position. To the same effect were the observations made in the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Manuranipur Kisan Sahkari Sewa Samiti Manuranipur District Jhansi v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1998 (57) FLR 315 (All). In that case also a plea was taken on behalf of the petitioner, a registered co-operative society, that the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable and as such the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and thus, the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 of the case does not come within the purview of Section 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The plea of exclusion of jurisdiction was raised in view of Section 135 of the Act of 1965. It was held that the exclusion was subject to the notification issued by the State Government and since no notification had been made, the question of ouster of jurisdiction of the Labour Court was unsustainable.;