S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 is appellant against a decree for damages. ( 2 ) CLAIMING to be an employee of defendant No. 2 as Assistant secretary, plaintiff filed the suit for compensation on account of termination 'of his service by defendant No. I as per order dated 3-12-1969 (Ext. 12)asserting that defendant No. I had no power to terminate his service, termination is outcome of mala lides of the various defendants and prohibi-tion by defendant No. 1 to allow plaintiff to discharge his duties in spite of the fact that the President directed defendant No. 1 to allow him to discharge his duties on the ground that defendant No. 1 has no power to terminate service of the plaintiff. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 in his written statement contests the suit on the ground of maintainability. Appointment to plaintiff was challenged being contrary to the resolution of the appointment committee. In an enquiry conducted by defendant No. 4, notice was issued to plaintiff to take part. Although notice was communicated, did not appear. Plaintiff was found guilty of allegations levelled by him after due enquiry. On that account, board decided to obtain adequate securities from all the employees including the plaintiff dealing with properties of the Society. Plaintiff was called upon to furnish additional security. Since plaintiff did not furnish security, his service was terminated which is valid. Malafides alleged by plaintiff were denied. ( 4 ) PLAIN-TIFF examined himself and the President as the two witnesses and proved documents which are marked Exts. 1 to 96/a. Defendants examined five witnesses and proved documents marked Exts. A to AAA. On consideration of the aforesaid materials, trial Court having held that defendant No. 2 had no authority to terminate the service to which he was validly appointed, directed payment of compensation which is subject matter of this appeal. ( 5 ) PLAINTIFF claims to be an employee of a Co-operative Society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. Since he cannot enforce his continuance in employment, as service under the Co-operative societies are not protected either under the constitution or under any Statute, he has claimed compensation on account of illegal termination of his service. In 55 (1983) C. L. T. 489 (The United Puri Nimapara Central Co-operative bank Ltd. . Since he cannot enforce his continuance in employment, as service under the Co-operative societies are not protected either under the constitution or under any Statute, he has claimed compensation on account of illegal termination of his service. In 55 (1983) C. L. T. 489 (The United Puri Nimapara Central Co-operative bank Ltd. . Puri and others v. Prafulla Kumar Mishra), an employee of a co-operative Society while praying for declaration that his suspension from service is illegal, prayed for reinstatement or in the alternative compensation. Considering the question it was observed that the employee of a Co-operative society is not entitled to restoration of service though he can lay claim for compensation. In A. I. R. 1970 S. C. 1244 : (Executive Committee of N. P. State Warehousing Corpn. , Lucknow - v. Chandra Kiran Tyagi), relied upon by this Cdurt in the aforesaid decision, it has been observed :"the law relating to master and servant is clear. A contract for personal service will not be enforced by an order for specific performance nor will it be open for a servant to refuse to accept the repudiation of a contract of service by his master and say that the contract has never been terminated. The remedy of the employee is a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal or for breach of contract. "therefore, claim for-compensation by the plaintiff in this case is maintainable. ( 6 ) QUESTION of compensation would arise if the termination is invalid or unlawful. Where the appointment itself is not valid, invalidity of termination by not observing certain salient rules may not give rise to compensation though an employee was receiving salary during the period he was continuing under the employment. Receipt of salary would be protected under Section 70 of the Contract Act since it was never intended to be gratuitous. But, the employment cannot be valid on that ground. Mr S. Misra (2), learned counsel for the appellant might have been correct in his submission that the appointment of the plaintiff being by the Director who is not authorised to appoint employees of the Society, termination cannot be challenged. In this case, it has been proved that the resolution of the appointment committee was not followed by the Director. But that would not assist the defendants in any manner. In this case, it has been proved that the resolution of the appointment committee was not followed by the Director. But that would not assist the defendants in any manner. A Co-operative Society registered under the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act is a body corporate It has no living mind. It has to function through individuals Those individuals constitute the Board of Directors. Such Board can exercise power of appoinment itself or delegate the same to other officers or committees. By delegation, it dose not divest itself with the power in absence of any statutory provision to that effect. Accordingly, whatever might have been the scope or the initial appointment of plaintiff, Board having accepted the appointment and allowed him advance increments in its meeting held on 29-4-1968 (Ext. 60) validity appointment of plaintiff cannot be questioned any further Tria Court rightly held that plaintiff was validly appointed. ( 7 ) STRENUOUS arguments were advanced on behalf of appellant and other defendants as well as by the plaintiff about the mala fides in the background of termination of service of plaintiff. While defendants claim absence of mala fide, plaintiff presses upon the facts and circumstances to prove mala fide, after hearing learned counsel for all the parties, I am inclined to hold that exercise to find mala fides is not necessary in this case. Question is left open as the same is of academic interest only. ( 8 ) THERE is no dispuie that defenant No. 2 is the employer but defendant No. 1, its Secretary terminnated the services of plaintiff. Plaintiff has challenged the authority of defendant No. I to terminate his service for a valid exercise of power, defendant No. 2 ought to have brought to notice of the Court any provision in bye law or any resolution in which the power of termination of service of Assistant Secretary was delegated to the Secretary. At no stage, Board of Directors also ratified such termination. If the termination woulid have been ratified by the Board of directors, question might have been different. In absence of such document when the stand of defendant No. 2 is that appointment committee is the appointing authority of the plaintilf, the appointment committee if at all could have terminated service of plaintiff on the principle that unless'otherwise provided, authority having power of appointment has the power of termina tion also. In absence of such document when the stand of defendant No. 2 is that appointment committee is the appointing authority of the plaintilf, the appointment committee if at all could have terminated service of plaintiff on the principle that unless'otherwise provided, authority having power of appointment has the power of termina tion also. Neither the appointment Committee nor the Board of Directors having terminated employment of plaintiff and at no stage termination by the defendant No. 1 having been validly ratified, termination has no strength and is invalid in law. Without a valid order of termination by a competent authority, plantiff has suffered and is entitled to compensation. ( 9 ) MR. S Misra (2) relied upon section 68 of the Orissa Co-operative societies Act and submitted that termination of employment of plaintiff is a dispute which the Registrar is to adjudicate and thus suit is not maintainable under section 9, C. P. C. in view of section 121 of the Act he submitted that disciplinary action taken against a paid Servant is only excluded. Termination which is not a disciplinary action is not excluded under section 68. ( 10 ) IT is no doubt true that the order of termination on the face of it is a simple termination. If the cause of termination would not have been disclosed in the written statement, I would have examined the question of mala fides, In the written statement, it has been clearly stated that additional security called upon to be furnished not having been furnished by the plaintiff his service was terminated. Non compliance of a direction amounts to disobedience of order. Termination on account of disobedience of direction amounts to disciplinary action and is excluded from operation under section 68 of the Act. Therefore, contention of Mr. Misra has no force. Besides, in A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1203 ; (The Gujarat State Co-operative Land Development bank Ltd. , v. P. R. Mankad and another), it has been observed that removal of an employee is not a dispute to be resolved by the Registrar as it is not a dispute touching the business of the Society and is outside the scope of expression touching the management of the society. This decision gives strength to come to a conclusion that a civil suit claiming compensation is maintainable and neither section 68 nor section 121 of the Orissa Co-operative societies Act would bar such a suit. ( 11 ) AS regards the nature of compensation, plaintiff has claimed compensation for loss of salary. Trial Court decreed that plaintiff would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 451/-per month subject to payment of court-fee on the same amount at the time of execution till he attains the age of 62 which is the age of superannuation under defendant No. 2 for an employee or till his death or till he is employed elsewhere whichever is earlier. This decision is justified in this case. I may however, observe the termination being by a functionary which had no authority to termination. Defendant no. 2 can call upon the plaintiff to render the services whereupon the compensation would not be paid. ( 12 ) IN result, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. There shall, however, no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.