1. The petitioner worked as a clerk and then as an Accountant under the second respondent-a Co-operative Credit Society (the society for short). The Society originally registered under the Madras Co-operative Societies Act, 1932 is now under the relevant provision of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter called the Act) deemed to be registered under the Act. He had joined the service of the Society on 14 -12 -1957 as a clerk and then promoted as Accountant on 28 - 3 -1960. He was promoted as Treasurer of the Society on the basis of his seniority on 25 - 7-1966. The petitioner has got a case that his promotion was made reluctantly by the Board of Directors of the Society who were really forced to do so when he objected strongly when a junior of his, one P. Narayanan Nair was sought to be promoted to that post. The allegation is that this made the Directors ill-disposed towards him.

2. The petitioner's contentions in the O.P. are that as a result of the ill-will of the Directors against him, he was dismissed from the service of the Society illegally and in violation of the principles of natural justice on 23-1-68, the dismissal being made effective from 24 -12 - 66. The facts leading rise to this dismissal from service are narrated in para 4 of the petition; but it is not necessary to go into the details therein in view of the contentions in the O.P. This dismissal from service-illegal and void in law according to the petitioner-was, questioned in a suit which the petitioner filed before the Munsiff's court, Payyoli wherein a declaration that the order of dismissal is void and that he should be retained in his status as an employee of the Society was prayed for. The suit was transferred to the Sub Court, Badagara and stood posted for trial, when the plaint was returned on objection raised by the Society that the suit in a civil court is not maintainable and that the petitioner has to seek his remedy under S.69 of the Act before the first respondent-the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies The plaint was accordingly represented before the first respondent as one under S.69 of the Act. However, on a preliminary objection raised by the Society the first respondent held that proceedings under S.69 of the Act will not lie in this matter and the proper and competent authority which the petitioner could approach for redress of his grievances as prayed for is the Industrial Court under the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore the suit was dismissed by the first respondent. Ext. P2 is the order of dismissal as marked in this proceedings and the petitioner seeks for a writ of certiorari for quashing this order.

3. The questions raised by the petitioner in this O. P. are:

(i) Reliefs which the petitioner had sought before the first respondent are of such nature which a civil court could grant in a properly framed suit and therefore the first respondent could have certainly entertained the suit.

(ii) The Co-operative Societies Act is a special enactment so far as the co-operative Societies are concerned and all disputes of the nature specified in S.69 have to be adjudicated by the authority constituted under that Act. The Industrial Disputes Act is a general law so far as employer-employee relationship is concerned and has to give way to special law, namely the Co-operative Societies Act, so far as employees of Co-operative Societies are concerned.

(iii) The order of dismissal is void and the petitioner retains his status as an employee under the Society. There is no necessity to set aside the order of dismissal and hence also for a direction for reinstatement. The petitioner's prayer is for arrears of salary and allowances, which a civil court and hence the first respondent, would be competent to grant.

These contentions strongly pressed before me by Mr. T. L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned counsel for the petitioner, are unsustainable in view of the various decisions of the Supreme Court and of this court on the matt