JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - The petitioner, Raghunath Prasad, was the employee of the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow and was selected and appointed on 13th August, 1960 as kamdar in Sahkari Sangh Limited, Ghiror. The Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow was the apex Society within the meaning of Section 2(a-4) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In 1969, the petitioner was transferred to Sahkari Sangh Limited, Bewar as kamdar by the District Assistant Registrar. The petitioner continued to function as such upto the year 1975 when the State Government constituted an authority known as U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board (hereinafter referred to as Board) vide notification dated 4th March, 1972 for the recruitment, training and disciplinary control of the employees of the Co-operative Societies. In 1976, the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow was recognised as Federal Authority by the State of U.P. exercise of the powers conferred by the notification dated 13th February, 1976 of the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. As a result, the U.P. Co operative Union Limited became the Federal Authority. 2. The petitioner, thereafter, was terminated by the impugned order dated 30th June, 1978 by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Agra Region, Agra, who was also the Chairman of the Regional Committee, U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, which as already noted above, had become the Federal Authority. 3. Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order of termination, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The writ petition has been contested by the respondent No. 2. 5. The petitioner's learned counsel urged that since he was an employee of the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow, which was the apex body, his business regulations were governed by the Regulations framed in the year 1975 under Section 122 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act. The learned counsel urged that in view of the above, the impugned termination order passed by the Deputy Registrar aforesaid claiming himself as the Chairman of the Regional Committee (P. C. U.) was invalid. He urged that he could be terminated only by the Co-operative Society concerned and not by the Chairman of the Regional Committee. 6. For supporting his argument, the counsel took us through Section 122 of the Act and pointed out that under this section, the State Government had the authority to constitute an Institutional Board for the purposes amongst others of disciplinary control. 6. For supporting his argument, the counsel took us through Section 122 of the Act and pointed out that under this section, the State Government had the authority to constitute an Institutional Board for the purposes amongst others of disciplinary control. In pursuance of this section, that the regulations governing the business regulations applicable to the petitioner were framed in 1975. He contended that his termination could be if at all, he in accordance with the regulations of 1975. 7. Sri Triloki Nath controverting the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner was not governed by the service regulations of the year 1975 framed under Section 122 of the Act. He urged that with respect to the petitioner, the notification had been issued in the year 1976 governing the service regulation of the employees of the Federal Authority. He contended that as the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow had been recognises as a Federal Authority, the service regulations laid down by the aforesaid notification recognising the U.P. Co-operative Union Limited as Federal Authority, would be applicable to the petitioner. Sri Triloki Nath further pointed out that under Regulation 4 of U.P.- Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976, the services of the petitioner stood transferred to the Federal Authority which had been recognised by the State Government as such, in exercise of the powers conferred by the notification made in the month of February, 1976. He urged that after the services of the petitioner stood transferred to the Federal Authority, it did not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to urge that his service regulations were to be governed by the regulations framed under Section 122 aforesaid. 8. For the proposition argued by Sri Triloki Nath the reliance was placed on a decision of a Division Bench of this court reported in Ram Chandra Dixit v. Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, 1980 UPLBEC 325. In that case the controversy involved was exactly the same as it has arisen before us in this case. That was also the case in respect of U.P. Co-operative Union Limited, Lucknow. This Court held that the service regulations of the employees of the aforesaid Union which had been recognised as Federal Authority would be governed by the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. This authority fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 9. This Court held that the service regulations of the employees of the aforesaid Union which had been recognised as Federal Authority would be governed by the Co-operative Federal Authority (Business) Regulations, 1976. This authority fully supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 9. We are told that an application for special leave had been filed in the Supreme Court as against this judgment, but the same was rejected. That apart, we are in agreement with the view taken in that decision and find that the U.P. Co-operative Union having been recognised as Federal Authority and the petitioner having been absorbed under clause 4(2-a), he would be governed by the business regulations of the year 1976. That being so, the petitioner's first contention that the termination order was not passed by the authority entitled to do so, has to be rejected as having no substance 10. The second argument of the respondent's learned counsel was that as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 70 of the Business Regulations, 1976, this court should reject the writ petition on the basis of the availability of an alternative remedy to him. He urged that going into the validity of the impugned order would require this Court to consider the evidence, which it is not possessed of. The argument of the respondents learned counsel appears to be sound. 11. In order to find whether the termination order was punitive or was a simplicitor termination of the petitioner's services, it would be necessary to examine the record and find out its real nature. We consider that for the petitioner more appropriate and proper remedy would be to file an appeal under Regulation 70 of the Business Regulation, 1970, the appeal is filed within two months from today, the same shall be decided in accordance with law expeditiously. 12. With these observations, the writ petition is rejected. No costs.