JUDGMENT C.S. Rajan, J. 1. Petitioner is an employee under respondents 1 and 2. By Ext. P1 order the 2nd respondent fixed the pay of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Stores Officer. Aggrieved by the above fixation of pay, petitioner filed a petition before the 3rd respondent seeking for a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to fix the pay of the petitioner in the post of Assistant Stores Officer correctly. The 3rd respondent considered the above matter as an arbitration case. Third respondent by Ext. P6 order disposed of the same giving the following direction. (para 4): ..... "In the circumstances, I am constrained to direct the respondents the Managing Director of the Kerala Coop. Marketing Federation Ltd. and the Manager, Kerala Coop. Milk Marketing Federation Cattle Feed Plant Ltd., Pattanakkad to reexamine the whole matter and to do what is necessary to get the basic pay of the petitioner refixed properly in accordance with the rules and to revise the refixation proceedings suitably." .... Respondents 1 and 2 took up the matter in appeal before the 4th respondent. Fourth respondent by Ext. P8 judgment set aside Ext. P6. The grounds on which Ext. P6 was set aside are: (i) the suit ought to have been dismissed by an arbitrator for nonpayment of court fee. (ii) There was no fair trial of the suit by the arbitrator, since no opportunity was given to the defendants to file the written statement. The result was to allow the appeal and to direct the plaintiff to file a fresh suit in accordance with law. 2. Ext. P8 is under challenge in this Original Petition. Sri. G. Sukumara Menon, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that no appeal will lie under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act (for short the Act) against Ext. P6 before the 4th respondent. Therefore it was argued that Ext. P8 is unsustainable. Sri. K. Anand, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that an appeal against an order like Ext. P6 is perfectly maintainable under S.82 of the Act. A reading of Ext. P6 will clearly reveal that what the petitioner filed was a petition before the 3rd respondent under S.59 of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the matter stating that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the Society. P6 is perfectly maintainable under S.82 of the Act. A reading of Ext. P6 will clearly reveal that what the petitioner filed was a petition before the 3rd respondent under S.59 of the Act. Respondents 1 and 2 contested the matter stating that there is no dispute between the petitioner and the Society. After considering the arguments of both, the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2 third respondent came to the conclusion that this is a dispute between the Society and the employee falling under S.69 of the Act. Therefore the decision rendered under Ext. P6 by the 3rd respondent is under S.69(4) of the Act. 3. Learned Counsel for respondent 1 and 2 invited my attention to S.70(3) of the Act which reads as follows: "(3). The Registrar or such person shall decide the dispute, or the arbitrator shall pass an award, in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and the bye laws and such decisions or award shall, subject to the provisions of S.82, be final, pending decision or award, the Registrar, such person or arbitrator as the case may be, may make such interlocutory or as he may deem necessary in the interests of justice". According to S.82(1)(e), any decision under sub-s.(3) of S.70 of the person invested by the Government with powers in that behalf is appealable. According to sub-s.(f) of S.82, any award of the arbitrator under sub-s(3) of S.70, is also appealable to the Tribunal"�. 4. Under S.69(1)(c) of the Act, if any dispute arises between the Society and any employee it is to be referred for adjudication to the Registrar. According to S.2(i) of the Act, any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a Society will come under the definition of dispute. Therefore, I do not think the petitioner can take a contrary stand that his petition before the 3rd respondent is not a petition filed under S.69 of the Act. 5. Section 70 of the Act provides for the steps to be taken by the Registrar after receipt of the reference of a dispute under S.69. Thus the Registrar or any such person empowered on his behalf shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If it is an arbitrator he can pass an award. Such a decision or award shall be subject to the provisions of S.82. 6. Thus the Registrar or any such person empowered on his behalf shall decide the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. If it is an arbitrator he can pass an award. Such a decision or award shall be subject to the provisions of S.82. 6. That is why S.82 of the Act specifically provides for an appeal from any decision or award under S.70(3) of the Act. Therefore I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioner that the appeal filed by respondents 1 and 2 is not maintainable before the Tribunal. 7. While confirming Ext. P8 passed by the 4th respondent, I think, the direction to file a fresh suit needs modification. The statement of the 4th respondent that the Court fee has not been paid seems to be not correct. Ext. P4 will go to show that the petitioner paid the prescribed fee as per chalan No. 21 dated 10.1.95 of the State Bank of India, Ernakulam Branch. 8. Therefore, the petitioner need not file any fresh suit as directed in Ext. P8. At the same time the 3rd respondent can proceed with the suit petition already filed by the petitioner which was disposed of by Ext. P6 and which was interfered with in Ext. P8. Since the matter was pending from 1995 onwards the 3rd respondent is directed to consider ARC No. 7/95 by giving an opportunity both the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 of being heard. This must be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction and observation.