Short Note : 1. The petitioner was employed as Assistant: Manager by the Madhya Pradesh State Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., on the initial pay of Rs. 250 per month in the scale of Rs. 250-450 temporarily until further order. By order dated 28th January 1960, the petitioner's services were terminated as no longer required. This dispute was decided under section 55 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 by the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar held that the order terminating the services was not passed in good faith and that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement but without back wages. This order was maintained in appeal by the Additional Registrar. The Board of Revenue allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Deputy Registrar. Held : The first question that has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of termination Was in contravention of bye-law 40 (iii) and was, therefore, invalid and void. The second part or the aforesaid bye-law says that in the case of an employee of the society having the starting salary of Rs 250/- per month or above prior approval of the Registrar for appointment, punishment or removal will be required. The learned counsel who appeared for the society contended that the petitioner's appointment was not made with the prior approval of the Registrar under the aforesaid bye-law and, therefore, the appointment itself was bad and the petitioner call not make any grievance that his services were terminated without prior approval of the Registrar. The fact that the petitioner's appointment was not made with the prior approval of the Registrar has not been displayed by the petitioner by filing any counter affidavit. This fact, must, therefore, be accepted. It is therefore clear that the petitioner's appointment itself was contrary to the bye-law and was invalid. If the appointment which was invalid is brought to an end without prior approval of the Registrar, the petitioner cannot make any grievance. Prior approval of the Registrar for removing an employee as required by the bye-law will obviously be needed only in those cases where the appointment is valid. If the appointment itself is invalid and void being in contravention of the bye-law for want of prior approval of the Registrar, it would not be necessary to obtain prior approval for terminating the appointment. 2. If the appointment itself is invalid and void being in contravention of the bye-law for want of prior approval of the Registrar, it would not be necessary to obtain prior approval for terminating the appointment. 2. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Board of Revenue should have upheld the order of the Deputy Registrar as the finding that the order of termination of services was not passed in good faith was not disturbed by the Board. In the same context, it is argued by the learned counsel that the Registrar dealing with a dispute under section 55 (2) has the same powers as possessed by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is no doubt true that if the termination of service is a colourable exercise of the powers vested in the management or as a result of victimisation or unfair labour practice the Tribunals functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act have jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such termination and to order reinstatement, however the learned counsel in not correct, is his submission that the Registrar possesses the same jurisdiction while deciding a dispute under section 55 (2) of the Co-operative Societies Act. It is clear that the Registrar has to decide the dispute under section 55 (2) according to the law of master and servant, the provisions of the Act and rules and bye-laws applicable to the society. The Registrar does, not possess the wider jurisdiction exercised by the Industrial Tribunals or Courts under the Industrial Disputes Act. Under the law of master and servant an order terminating the service of an employee cannot be declared to be invalid even though it may be in breach of the contract of service. The employee in such a case can claim only damages. The declaration can be obtained even if the employer terminates or repudiates the contract of service in bad faith. However, if the termination of service contravenes any statutory provision, the order of termination would be invalid. In the instant case, there is no violation of any provision of the Act or rules or bye-laws. There is also no violation of the service condition. The petitioner was appointed temporarily until further orders. His services could be terminated at any time by the Society. In the instant case, there is no violation of any provision of the Act or rules or bye-laws. There is also no violation of the service condition. The petitioner was appointed temporarily until further orders. His services could be terminated at any time by the Society. In the circumstances, the Deputy Registrar had clearly no jurisdiction to declare the termination of service invalid and to order reinstatement under section 55 (2) on the ground that the order of termination was passed in bad faith. The question of good faith or a bad faith does not arise when the termination of service did not contravene any provision of the Act or the rules or the by-laws or the contract of service. The view taken by the Board of Revenue was right. L. Michael v. Johnson Pumps Ltd., AIR 1975 SC 661 , R. K. M. S. Samiti, Durg v. Presiding Officer, 1975 JLJ 732 , Ramswarup v. M. P. Co-operative Marketing, P. Ltd, 1976 JLJ 293 , relied on Petition dismissed.