The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Registrar has jurisdiction to resolve disputes falling within the Act's provisions, excluding industrial tribunals, and that the Registrar's decisions are valid within the limits prescribed under the Act.

1. The petitioner prays for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order, to quash Exts. P1 and P2 orders. Ext. P1 was passed by the 1st respondent under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and Ext. P2 by the 2nd respondent under S.82 of the Act.

2. The petitioner and the 4th respondent have been and still are employees of the 3rd respondent Co-operative bank. By resolution No. 221 adopted by the 3rd respondent bank on 10 41970 both the petitioner and the 4th respondent were promoted as Assistant Accountants. By the same resolution the bank declared that the petitioner was senior to the 4th respondent. This part of the resolution concerning seniority gave rise to a controversy between the petitioner and the Bank on the one hand and the 4th respondent on the other. The 4th respondent thereupon initiated proceedings under S.69 of the Act by filing an arbitration case before the 1st respondent, the Deputy Registrar. The petitioner contended before the Deputy Registrar that he lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as it was not a dispute coming within the definition of S.2 (i) read with S.69. This preliminary objection as to jurisdiction was overruled by the Deputy Registrar. After hearing both the parties and after taking evidence, the Deputy Registrar found that on the date of the resolution -i. e,10-4-70 the petitioner did not have the same length of continuous service as in the case of the 4th respondent and that he had not acquired the requisite qualification for being promoted as a clerk till March 1968. The 4th respondent was found to have had a longer continuous service and to have acquired the requisite qualification as early as 511966. Based on these facts, the 1st respondent Deputy Registrar held that resolution No. 221 dated 10 4 '70 was invalid in so far as it declared the relative seniority of the petitioner. An appeal was filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent Tribunal under S.82 of the Act. The Tribunal after hearing the parties confirmed the order of the 1st respondent Deputy Registrar. The Tribunal stated as follows:

"It can safely be said that the 2nd respondent is senior to the appellant and the Deputy Registrar has come to the correct conclusion regarding this aspect. Hence the appeal is without merits"

3. The petitioner challenges both these orders on the ground that the controversy which arose as a result of the resolution declaring the 1st petitioner to be senior vis-a-vis the 4th respondent was not a matter which came within the ambit of the definition'dispute' under S.2 (i) read with S.69. He therefore contends that jurisdiction was wrongly assumed by the first and 2nd respondents and consequently the orders are invalid. The petitioner has also contended that these two orders are vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.

4. The question that was mainly urged before me by the petitioner's counsel was as regards the competence of the Registrar. I shall first deal with this point. S.2 (i) of the Act defines a'dispute' as follows:

"'Dispute' means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not;" (italics supplied)

S. 69 says:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises

(a)

(b)

(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee, or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society; or

such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar for decision, and no court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute."

5. The term'dispute' takes in matters touching, among other things, establishments. S.80 of