SOHANI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) THE material facts giving rise to this petition briefly, are as follows: the petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 1, the Brahatakar prathmik Krishi Sahakari Sakh Samiti Maryadit, Dhamnod, a Co-operative society registered under the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). By an order dated 16-11-1979, respondent no. 1 terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that they were no longer required and the petitioner was paid three months'salary in lieu of three months' notice. On 10-12-1979, the petitioner raised a dispute under section 64 of the Act before respondent No. 4, the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative societies. The petitioner contended that the order of termination of his services was illegal and that he be reinstated with back wages. The application was resisted by respondent No-1 inter alia, on the ground that the assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Act to entertain the dispute. This contention was upheld by respondent No. 4 by his order dated 11-9-1980 by holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 3, the Joint Registrar, who set aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The Joint Registrar, by his order Annexure 'h', held that the dispute raised by the petitioner could be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. The Joint Registrar further held that even if it was held for the sake of argument that the dispute in question could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act, the said dispute could be entertained under Section 55 (2) of the Act The Joint Registrar accordingly directed the Assistant Registrar to dispose of the dispute raised by the petitioner either under Section 64 or under Section 55 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 1, preferred a second appeal before the Board of revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed that appeal and after setting aside the order passed by respondent No 3, restored the order passed by respondent no. 4. Aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 1, preferred a second appeal before the Board of revenue. The Board of Revenue allowed that appeal and after setting aside the order passed by respondent No 3, restored the order passed by respondent no. 4. The Board of Revenue held that the dispute raised by the petitioner on 10-12-79, before the Assistant Registrar could not be entertained either under section 64 of the Act or under Section 55 (2) of the Act, as it was in force at the material time and hence, the Assistant Registrar was right in holding that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 3 ) SHRI Pavecha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that under Section 55 (2) of the Act, as it stood on 10-12-1979, only a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by a Co-operative Society against its employee could be referred to the Registrar and that as no disciplinary action was taken against the petitioner by respondent No. 1, he could not raise a dispute under section 55 (2) of the Act. It was urged that the dispute could only be referred to the Assistant Registrar under Section 64 of the Act. In reply, Shri nimgaonkar, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, contended that the board of Revenue was right in holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court reported in Sahakari Vipnan Sanstha, Khargone v. Labour Court, Indore [ 1986 JLJ 740 ]. ( 4 ) THE short question for consideration is whether the Board of Revenue has committed any error apparent on the face of the record in holding that the dispute raised by the petitioner could not be entertained under Section 64 of the Act. That question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in 1986 JLJ 740 (supra ). It was observed in that case as follows;"the question then that arises for consideration is whether a dispute regarding termination of services of an employee of a Co-operative society and the relief of reinstatement prayed in that behalf is required to be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of section 64 of the Act. It was observed in that case as follows;"the question then that arises for consideration is whether a dispute regarding termination of services of an employee of a Co-operative society and the relief of reinstatement prayed in that behalf is required to be referred to the Registrar under the provisions of section 64 of the Act. Now so far as the applicability of the provisions of Section 64 of the Act is concerned, the matter is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in The Gujarat state Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. P. R. Mankad and another [ air 1979 SC 1203 ]. While construing similar provisions under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1962, the Supreme court held that the compulsory arbitration by the Registrar on a reference under that Act was only a substitute for adjudication of disputes of a civil nature normally tried by Civil Courts and that the legislature never intended to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour court or the Industrial Tribunal to determine claims and industrial disputes, which could not be adjudicated by the ordinary Civil courts. The Supreme Court observed that though a Labour court was competent to grant the relief of reinstatement claimed by an employee, the Civil Court was not competent to grant that relief in view of the provisions of Section 21 (b) of the Specific relief Act. The Supreme Court further held that a dispute raised by an employee of a Co-operative Society seeking the relief of reinstatement on account of wrongful termination of services was not covered by the expression "any dispute" occurring in Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act. Now the relevant provisions of Section 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act are substantially similar to the provisions of Section 64 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. It must, therefore, be held, following the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, that the dispute raised by respondent No. 3, in the instant case, is not covered by the expression "any dispute" occurring in Section 64 of the Act and hence, the provisions of Section 64 of the Act are not attracted in the instant case. "following that decision, therefore, it must be held that the dispute raised by the petitioner, was rightly held by the Assistant Registrar to be a dispute, which could not be entertained by him under Section 64 of the Act. "following that decision, therefore, it must be held that the dispute raised by the petitioner, was rightly held by the Assistant Registrar to be a dispute, which could not be entertained by him under Section 64 of the Act. In upholding this decision of the Assistant Registrar, the Board of Revenue did not commit any error apparent on the fact of the record. It was stated before us that after the decision of the Assistant Registrar on 11-9-80, the provisions of Section 55 (2) of the Act were amended by Act No. 28 of 1982 and the dispute raised by the petitioner could be entertained by the Registrar under Section 55 (2) of the Act. If, according to the petitioner, respondent No. 1, has subsequent to his decision, acquired jurisdiction to entertain the dispute regarding termination of his services, he may seek remedy in that behalf in accordance with law. On the date when the dispute was referred to respondent No. 1, by the petitioner, he had no jurisdiction to entertain it either under Section 64 or under section 55 (2) of the Act. The decision of the Board of Revenue affirming the order of the Assistant Registrar, cannot be held to be vitiated by any error apparent on the fact of the record. No case is, therefore, made out for granting any relief to the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) THE petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this petition. The amount of security deposit, if any, be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed. .