Rama Jois, J.
1. The petitioner has presented this Writ Petition praying for quashing the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowing the appeal presented by Respondent-3 and setting aside the order of the Arbitrator which was in favour of petitioner.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner was an employee of the 3rd Respondent-society, since 16-8-1971. In January 1977 the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the 3rd Respondent-society. The petitioner raised a dispute under Section 70 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 ('the Act' for short). The dispute was referred to the Arbitrator of Co-operative Societies, Mandya District, Mandya, for adjudication. By Order dated 1-8-1978, the Arbitrator held that the condition imposed to the effect that the petitioner would not be entitled to subsistence allowance was invalid. The Arbitrator further held that the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance as also arrears of salary from the date of suspension till the date of his reinstatement. He also directed the 3rd Respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith and to paysubsistence allowance and arrears of salary from the date of suspension. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent-society preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 14-12-1979 held that as the subject matter of dispute between the petitioner and Respondent-3 related to the conditions of service of the petitioner, the petitioner can only raise an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, a dispute under Section 70 of the Act was not maintainable.
3. The Tribunal in para 7 of its order noticed clause (d) of Section 70(2) of the Act which was introduced into the Act by Act 19 of 1976 with effect from 20-1-1976. According to the said clause, a dispute concerning the conditions of service of an employee of a co-operative society could be raised under Section 70 of the Act. Even so, the Tribunal took the view that the provisions relating to the reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act was a special provision and a dispute which can be raised under Section 70 of the Act was a general one and, therefore, the dispute was not maintainable.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the view taken by the Tribunal is patently erroneous.
5. Section 70(2)(d) of the Act was introduced into the Act with the object of providing a remedy to all the employees of co-operative societies in respect of any grievance relating to their conditions of service. It is difficult to appreciate as to how, if an employee of a co-operative society also happens to be a workman as defined under Section 2(s) of the Indus-trial Disputes Act and, therefore, could raise an industrial dispute under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act could not avail of the remedy under Section 70 of the Act. In this behalf it is necessary to point out that as far as a remedy under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, the employee of a co-operative society, who also happens to be a workman, an order of the State Government referring his dispute for industrial adjudication is necessary, whereas under Section 70(2)(d) of the Act he could straight away raise a dispute. It is left to the workman to choose either of the remedies. The existence of two remedies is no ground to hold that one of them stands excluded.
6. The above question was considered from another angle in the case of Harugeri Urban Co-operative Bank -v.-State of Karnataka, 1981 (1) KLJ 136. In that case, an order of reference made by the State Government referring the dispute betweena workman of the said bank and the bank, for adjudication was challenged on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the reference in view of theamendment incorporated to Section 70(2)(d) of the Act. In the said decision, this Court pointed out that a dispute concerning the conditions of service between an employer and the management of a co-operative society falls under Section 70(2)(d) of the Act and, therefore, by virtue of Section 118 of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court alone was ousted and not of the Industrial Tribunal. As far as the Industrial Disputes Act is concerned, while it provides a remedy under Section 10(l) of the Act, it does not bar the jurisdiction of any other forum to which resort could be made in law by the workman.
7. For the aforesaid reasons, I make the following order --
(i) Rule made absolute.
(ii) The impugned order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 72/79 dated 14-12-1979 (Annexure-E) is set aside.
(iii) The appeal stands remitted to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for fresh disposal of the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
(iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeal most expeditiously.