P. Sam Koshy, J.

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh Co-operative Tribunal and the order dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P/4) passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Society.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the petitioners in the present case have been engaged by the respondent No.4 bank in the capacity of Data Entry Operator. The nature of appointment of the petitioners was contractual in nature and the contract was being renewed continuously from the date of their initial appointment which for all the petitioners vary between 2008 to 2013.

3. The petitioners herein had raised a dispute before the Registrar, Cooperative Society under Section 55 (2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short, the Act) read with Section 64 of the Act. The claim was for a direction to the respondents to consider regularization of the petitioners considering the fact that they have put in a considerable period of service with the respondent No.4. The Registrar vide order dated 05.08.2016 rejected the claim application on the ground that the same was not maintainable since the petitioners did not fall within the definition of "employee" under the Act and that their engagement was contractual in nature.

4. The said order of Registrar was questioned before the Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Tribunal and the Tribunal also vide its order dated 09.11.2016 (Annexure P/1) have affirmed the order of Registrar and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioners.

5. The contention of the petitioners while assailing the two orders is that, the findings of the Registrar as well as of the Tribunal are erroneous and deserve to be set aside. The Act, 1960 does not lay down a clear definition of an employee and that the definition of employee has to be construed in a liberal manner as is provided in the dictionary which says the relationship of employer and employee. Where the employer engages the service of the employee on consideration of wages, the person engaged becomes an employee.

6. The petitioner further submits that the respondent No.4 as of now has taken a stand for considering the case of the petitioners for regularization but pendency of writ petition and the orders passed by the Registrar and the order of Tribunal is coming in the way of the petitioners from being considered.

7. Counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 do not dispute this contention which the counsel for the petitioners has made.

8. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, so far as the facts narrated by the petitioners in the preceding paragraph is concerned, the same is not disputed by the counsel for the respondents and it also stands established from the pleadings that they have made in the writ petition and the documents enclosed herewith.

9. At this juncture it would be relevant to take note of the provisions of the Act, 1960. Section 2 of the said Act does not lay down any specific definition of an employee. Neither does the said Act, in any manner, enumerate a clause whereby a person engaged on contract basis have been held to be excluded from being brought within the ambit of the Act, 1960.

10. It would also be relevant at this juncture to take note of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, 1960. For ready reference, the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 55 of the Act is reproduced herein:

"55. Registrar's power to determine conditions of employment in societies (1). The Registrar may, from time to time, frame rule governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the Registrar in this behalf.

(2). Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its