The main legal point established is that the Assistant Registrar's decision under S.69(4) of the Co-operative Societies Act is final and not appealable. Additionally, the court emphasized the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience to be followed by the Assistant Registrar in adjudicating disputes related to breach of a contract of service under the Act.

1. The appellant was holding office as Manager of the North Malabar District Co-operative Supply and Marketing Society Ltd., Calicut. On the ground that he is guilty of certain misconducts, a penalty of reversion to the post of Inspector was imposed on him some time in the year 1970. The appellant raised a dispute in respect thereof under S.69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 before the Assistant Registrar who entertained the dispute. An objection was raised on behalf of the Society to the effect that the dispute is not maintainable and the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain this dispute under S.69. The parties were heard and a decision was rendered under S.69 (4) of the Act on the 28th of July, 1976. The Assistant Registrar held that the dispute is one which falls under S.2 (i) of the Act and that it can be adjudicated upon under S.69 of the Act. The Society challenged the decision by way of an appeal before the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, Trivandrum. The said Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Assistant Registrar and dismissed the dispute holding that the dispute raised is not one which falls under S.2 (i) of the Act and therefore the Assistant Registrar cannot entertain such a dispute. That dispute was rendered by the Tribunal as per Ext. P12 on the 29th of December, 1978 which came to be challenged in O.P.418 of 1979. The learned single judge dismissed the said original petition by judgment dated 12th January, 1981. The learned single judge accepted the contention of the appellant that the appeal filed by the Society was not competent. Having regard to this finding, ordinarily the learned single judge would have allowed the original petition and quashed the order of the Tribunal. But the learned single judge declined to do so on the ground that the order of the Assistant Registrar was without jurisdiction and hence the order of the Tribunal has not resulted in failure of justice justifying interference under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The learned single judge came to the conclusion that the order of the Tribunal does not result in failure of justice on the ground that the dispute raised does not fall under S.2 (i) of the Co-operative Societies Act and should not have been entertained by the Assistant Registrar. In other words, the learned single judge considered it a futile exercise to remit the case for being disposed of on merits by the Assistant Registrar when he does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. It is the said decision that is challenged in this appeal.

2. The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 28-7-1976 is one rendered under S.69 of the Act. The Assistant Registrar has exercised his jurisdiction under the said section for deciding as to whether the dispute is one falling under S.2(i) of the Act. Sub-s. (4) of S.69 makes it clear that such a decision is final. S.82 of the Act which provides for appeal makes it clear that an order made under S.69 (4) is not appealable. It is therefore clear that the learned single judge rightly held that the appeal of the Society before the Tribunal against the order of the Assistant Registrar under S.69 (4) is not maintainable. It is not possible to take a different view on that question.

3. The only question now to be considered is whether the learned single judge was justified in declining to interfere on the ground that the order of the Tribunal does not result in failure of justice. Learned single judge has come to that conclusion having held that the Assistant Registrar has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute at all. The reasoning for this conclusion is that a contract of service is not specifically enforceable even in a civil suit and that being the position, a contract of service could not be enforced in proceedings under S.69 of the Act. Even if the contract of service is not specifically enforceable, as held by the learned single judge, it is not as if the party who complains of