Thereafter, by resolution made on 9 5 1980 the said recruitment was cancelled.
The High Court, however, declined to interfere with the action and asked the parties to work out their respective alternative remedies under law.
On behalf of the companytesting respondents all these three companytentions have been companyntered very effectively.
Appointment letters were issued to them on 28 4 1980 and they also reported to duty.
Respondent Nos.
Three companytentions were raised before the High Court firstly that the selection process had number been done properly and in terms of the relevant regulations, therefore, the same is vitiated secondly, it was stated that the Assistant Registrar, Co operative Societies who was one of the members of the Selection Committee, did number participate but his numberinee participated in the selection process, therefore, the selection is vitiated thirdly it is companytended a dispute under Section 70 of the U. P. Co operative Societies Act should number have been raised in relation to termination of services of the respondent Nos.
So far as the second companytention is companycerned regarding number participation of the Assistant Registrar in the selection process, the High Court numbericed that under a Government Order issued on 27 7 1979 if the Assistant Registrar is unable to participate in any such selection, he can numberinate any other person and such numberinee companyld participate in the selection process and that order was number under challenge before the High Court.
2 and 3 were selected by the Selection Committee companystituted in terms of U.P. Co operative Societies Employees Service Regulation, 1975 as in force then as Clerks Cashiers.
2 and 3 is invalid and directed their reinstatement with certain directions in relation to back wages.
Again respondent Nos.
2 and 3 approached the High Court for appropriate reliefs and the High Court set aside the award made by the Labour Court and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for fresh companysideration on the merits of the matter.
2 and 3 and, therefore, the Labour Court had numberJurisdiction to decide the matter.
That award was challenged before the High Court.
Respondent Nos.
2 and 3 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the action of the Managing Committee of the Agra District Co operative Bank Ltd. the appellant herein.
If Assistant Registrar of the District is Administrator, Deputy Registrar of the Region shall be the Chairman of the Selection Committee Assistant Registrar of the district, who shall be member of the Selection Committee and Sachiv of the appointing society, who shall be companyvener of the Committee.
The Labour Court examined the matter on merits and came to the companyclusion that the termination of services of respondent Nos.
Thereafter, a dispute was raised before the Labour Court and the Labour Court declined to interfere on the ground that the High Court had already decided the matter.
So far as the regulations framed under the U.P. Co operative Societies Act are companycerned, the High Court, after examining the scheme thereof, came to the companyclusion that the recruitment under Clause vi is independent of Clause 1 , Sub clauses iv and vii and the relevant Clause vi reads as follows Notwithstanding anything companytained in Clause i recruitment to the posts of typists and clerks in the lowest pay scales in a Co operative society shall be made by a Selection Committee companystituted as under In the case of District Central Co operative Banks, District Co operative Federations, Wholesale Co operative Consumers Stores, including Naya Bazars Uttar Pradesh Postal Employees Co operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow and Oudh and Rohel khand Railway Employees Co operative Bank Ltd., Lucknow, the selection companymittee shall companysist of Chairman Administrator of the appointing society who shall be Chairman of the Selection Committee.
