CHANDRAKANTHARAJ, J. ( 1 ) TWO authorities below have come to the conclusion that of the four charges, two of them should be deemed to have been dropped. For that they have given the reasons. Thereafter in regard to other charges which are held to have been proved by both the Arbitrator as well as the appellate Tribunal consider that the punishment of dismissal is excessive and not commensurate with the gravamen of the charges. ( 2 ) IN that circumstance, the Arbitrator set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement. That has been confirmed by the Tribunal. ( 3 ) IN more than one case, mostly arising under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Supreme Court and this Court have held that the Court should not substitute its discretion in regard to the measure of punishment which has been exercised by the authorities below who are enabled to do so by the statute. If that discretion is properly exercised having due regard to the circumstances, this court even if it were to come to a different conclusion under Art. 226 of the constitution should not interfere. There- fore, this petition is liable to be rejected. ( 4 ) HOWEVER, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner- Co-operative society drew my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of executive Committee of Vaish Degree college v. Lakshmi Narain and Others (1975 (11) S. C W. R. 5p8j as well as in the case of Arya Vidya Sabha Kashi and another v. Krishna Kumar Srivastava and another [1976 (1) S C. W R. 257]. In both the cases the question that fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether a co-operative society was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the high Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. In both the cases it has been held that a body incorporated under a statute like co-operative society is on the same footing as a company or other bodies incorporated under an enactment and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction. It has not laid down the proposition that an Arbitrator functioning under the provisions of the Co-operative societies Act is not empowered to settle the dispute between the servant of a Cooperative Society and the Management of the Co-operative Society in the manner as has been done in the present case, that is, directing a reinstatement. It has not laid down the proposition that an Arbitrator functioning under the provisions of the Co-operative societies Act is not empowered to settle the dispute between the servant of a Cooperative Society and the Management of the Co-operative Society in the manner as has been done in the present case, that is, directing a reinstatement. There is a difference between a High Court issuing a writ of mandamus under Art. 226 of the constitution against a person who is not a State or deemed to be a State and an arbitrator settling a dispute under the provisions of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act. Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel are not of much assistance. ( 5 ) IT was further argued that in terms of Rule 31 (4) (a) of the Karnataka co-operative Societies Rules, 1960, the arbitrator could not have disposed of the case without recording the evidence. No evidence was recorded is apparent. That cannot be taken advantage of by the Cooperative Society having consented to argue out the dispute on the basis of the documents. It is estopped from taking that contention. The Tribunal was correct in taking that view and this Court endorses same. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, this petition is rejected. Writ petition is rejected. --- *** --- .