Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, C.J. Appellant is the petitioner in O.P.4759 of 1995. He filed the Original Petition to quash Ext. P2 order of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies (first respondent). He also seeks a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext. P1 arbitration case after hearing him and the respondents in Ext. P1. The learned Single judge dismissed the Original Petition holding that Ext. P1 is in the nature of an appeal and cannot be said to be a dispute required to be settled by the Registrar under the provisions of S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 2. This is a case where Managing Director (3rd respondent) accepted the finding in the enquiry report and decided to impose punishment of withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. Appellate was asked to submit his explanation against the proposed punishment within 15 days of receipt of the above proposal. His explanation was considered. He was also heard on 16-10-1992. As the explanation was found not satisfactory,. the aforesaid punishment was imposed. 3. Contention of the appellant is that he is not a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 he being Assistant Manager (Projects) and discharging only supervisory and managerial duties and that the punishment imposed on him by respondents 2 and 3 can be challenged only before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Counsel for the appellant contended that if the appellant is a workman as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, it would have been possible for him to raise an industrial dispute and as he is not a workman being bestowed with supervisory and managerial duties the only course available to him is to invoke S.69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and the first respondent is the sole authority competent to adjudicate the dispute mentioned in Ext. P1. In other words, it is contended that the dispute mentioned in Ext. P1 is one coming within the definition of dispute as defined in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act read with S.69 and as the settled legal position is that no dispute can be raised under the Industrial Disputes Act at the instance of persons having managerial powers it would not be possible for the appellant to raise a dispute before the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal and hence first respondent is perfectly competent to adjudicate the dispute. It is further contended that the finding in Ext. P2 that the punishment imposed upon the appellant by the Society cannot be considered to be a dispute within the scope of S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is not competent to adjudicate on it cannot be legally sustained. 4 The question that arises for consideration is whether the punishment imposed by a society on its employee can be considered as a dispute within the scope of S.69 of the Act. Dispute is defined under the Act. "Dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not. Section 69 deals with the disputes to be referred to the Registrar. Contention of the appellant is that the punishment imposed against him would come under S.69(1)(c) of the Act and hence Ext. P-2 order which refused to entertain Ext. P1 arbitration case by the Registrar is unsustainable. There is no force in the above contention as it is not possible to hold that the punishment imposed against the appellant on the basis of the enquiry report by the Society would come under S.69(1)(c). If a dispute arises between the society or its committee and any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee, or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, it shall be referred to the Registrar for decision notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force [vide S.69(1)(c)]. Sub-section (2) enumerates certain disputes as deemed disputes. From a reading of S.69, it is not possible to hold mat punishment imposed by the society on its employee can be considered to be a dispute coming within the purview of this section. 5. R.198 envisages disciplinary action against any member of the establishment of a co-operative society. R.198(1) prescribes the punishment that can be imposed against an erring member of the establishment of a co-operative society. Sub-rule (3) mentions the authority competent to impose various penalties on different categories of employees. 5. R.198 envisages disciplinary action against any member of the establishment of a co-operative society. R.198(1) prescribes the punishment that can be imposed against an erring member of the establishment of a co-operative society. Sub-rule (3) mentions the authority competent to impose various penalties on different categories of employees. Sub-rule (4) provides that an appeal shall lie against every order imposing a penalty to the competent appellate authority mentioned thereunder. As R.198 specifically indicates the remedy available to a member of the establishment of a cooperative society pursuant to disciplinary action, the course available to him is to have availed of it. Certainly he cannot take up a position invoking S.69 of the Act. 6. The above being the correct position, Ext. P-2 order cannot be said to be bad. Dispute regarding the punishment imposed by a society on its employee cannot be considered as one within the scope of S.69 of the Act. The first respondent was justified in holding that the arbitration case filed by the appellant cannot be considered to be a dispute within the scope of S.69 of the Act. The appeal is devoid of any merit and hence the same is dismissed in limine.