D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Assistant samiti Sewak in Sewa Sahakari vsamiti in village Kaurpur at its branch at patna. By order (Annexure A) passed on 10. 8. 1983, the respondent. District co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Jabalpur approved his appointment to the samiti on a fixed salary. The Bank, thereafter, passed an order on 28. 9. 1985 (Annexure C) on the basis of the circular of the Registrar of the Co-operative society dated 11. 10. 1980 whereby the approval to the appointment of the petitioner was withdrawn. In the impugned communication the Bank stated that in such societies where the loan transactions are less than nine lacs of rupees, there would be no post of Assistant Samiti Sewak. On the direction of the respondent-Bank, the services of the petitioner were discontinued after 30. 9. 1985. ( 2 ) SHRI Ashok Jain. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in assailing the order of termination of the services of the petitioner relies on rule 63 of the Service Rules framed for the employees of Co-operative Central bank under the provisions of M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. Relying on the said Rule 66. it is contended that the petitioner was entitled to payment of retrenchment compensation and non-payment thereof rendered the termination illegal. ( 3 ) SHRI R. P. Agarwal. learned Counsel appears for the respondent-Bank. He points out that Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Kaurpur in which the petitioner was employer has not been arrayed as a party to this petition. It is submitted that the petitioner was not employer by the Bank. The said Co-operative Society where the petitioner was employed is only affiliated to the respondent-Bank. ( 4 ) ON the contention advanced on behalf of the respondent-Bank, the petitioner being not an employee of the Bank cannot take any support from the provisions of Rule 63 of the Service Rules, which are not applicable to his service. ( 5 ) AGAINST the alleged illegal termination of services of the petitioner, he had two remedies one under Section 55 of the Co- operative Societies Act, by raising a dispute before the Registrar and the other in the Industrial or Labour Court under the appropriate provisions of industrial law. The petitioner failed to resort to the available statutory remedies. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The petitioner failed to resort to the available statutory remedies. The petitioner is, therefore, not entitled to any relief. The petition is accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. The amount of security, if any, be refunded. Petition dismissed. .