S. K. KULSHRESTHA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 1. 10. 1985 (Annexure-C ). By which the respondent No. 1 was directed that since, as per the Registrar (Co-operative), directive dated 11. 10. 1983, there was no provision for appointment of Sahayak Samiti Sewak in the samities having turnover of less than 9 lacs, such appointments made in the samiti shall stand terminated w. e. f. 30. 9. 1995 and such Sahayak Samiti sewak shall not receive any pay on and from 1. 10. 1985. As a consequence, the petitioner seeks a direction that he be allowed to join and his back wages be granted. ( 2 ) AS per the case of the petitioner, on the basis of a resolution dated 19. 12. 1980 of the Sewa Sahkari Samiti, permission was accorded by memo dated 13. 5. 1981 (Annexure-A) of the respondent No. 1 Co-operative Bank for appointment of a Sahayak Samiti Sewak on condition that cost shall be borne by the Samiti. The petitioner was appointed and his appointment was confirmed by Annexure-B. However, impugned circular was issued terminating the services of Sahayak Samiti Sewak in Samitis having a turnover of less than 9 lacs. According to the petitioner, upon representation by him, he was appointed by order dated 7. 10. 1989 (Annexure-E) and then posted in Branch Barela vide order dated 7. 12. 1989 (Annexure-E/1 ). The petitioner was, however, not allowed to work although no order of termination was issued. The petitioner contends that he had sent various representations and even the local MLA and MP had sent letters to the concerned authorities for payment of the salary to the petitioner and for his reinstatement, but still the petitioner was neither paid the salary nor reinstated in service. ( 3 ) ON a show cause notice being issued, the respondent No. 1 has filed a return in which the said respondent has pointed out that Annexure-E purporting to be the appointment order of the petitioner has not been issued by the respondent. ( 3 ) ON a show cause notice being issued, the respondent No. 1 has filed a return in which the said respondent has pointed out that Annexure-E purporting to be the appointment order of the petitioner has not been issued by the respondent. The respondent being a Co-operative Bank, it is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court as it is not state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and this apart, the petitioner had a remedy of filing a dispute under Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative societies Act, 1960, if he was aggrieved by any order of the Samiti (Society) concerning his service conditions. The respondent No. 1 has, therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the petition. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that on one side the respondents have not passed any order terminating the service of the petitioner and on the other, he is not being paid salary nor allowed to work with the result. There was no order against which the petitioner could have filed a dispute under Section 55 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The contention of the learned counsel ignores the fact that Section 55 is not restricted to dispute concerning termination of service alone but permits a dispute regarding terms of employment, working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society. Section 55 of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 reads as under :"section. 55. Registrar's powers to determine conditions of employment in societies. (1) The registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the registrar in this behalf. (1) The registrar may, from time to time, frame rules governing the terms and conditions of employment in a society or class of societies and the society or class of societies to which such terms and conditions of employment are applicable shall comply with the order that may be issued by the registrar in this behalf. (2) Where a dispute, including a dispute regarding terms of employment working conditions and disciplinary action taken by a society, arises between a society and its employees, the registrar or any officer appointed by him not below the rank of Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute and his decision shall be binding on the society and its employees : provided that the registrar or the officer referred to above shall not entertain the dispute unless presented to him within thirty days from the date of order sought to be impugned : provided further that in computing the period of limitation under the foregoing proviso, the time requisite for obtaining copy of the order shall be excluded. " ( 5 ) A bare perusal clearly indicates that even if the petitioner was aggrieved by refusal of the respondents to allow him to work on the post in question, the petitioner had a remedy of raising a dispute under the said provision. Even otherwise, from the documents annexed to the petition, it is clear that the petitioner had full knowledge that order dated 28. 9. 1985 (Annexure-C) which the petitioner has challenged in this petition, clearly had the effect of terminating his service. Although the learned counsel contends that as per Balance Sheet (Annexure-D) of the Sewa Sahakari Samiti, the turnover of the Samiti was more than 9 lacks, since the petitioner has not impleaded the said Samiti as a respondent to the petition, the authenticity of the document cannot be verified. A copy of Annexure-C dated 28. 9. 1985 has been endorsed to the petitioner apparently because the petitioner was affected by the decision. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had continued to work in the said Samiti even after the impugned order Annexure-C. It is, therefore, manifest that the said order in fact terminated the service of the petitioner and the petitioner was fully aware of this consequence. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had continued to work in the said Samiti even after the impugned order Annexure-C. It is, therefore, manifest that the said order in fact terminated the service of the petitioner and the petitioner was fully aware of this consequence. ( 6 ) IT is seen from the document relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of challenging the order passed in the year 1985, the petitioner kept on approaching the authorities. The petitioner has filed annexure-E dated 7. 10. 1989 to contend that he was appointed as a Samiti sewak in Sewa Sahakari Samiti Singoadh and, thereafter, by Annexure-E / 1 dated 7. 12. 1989. transferred to Barela but later, not allowed to join. It is noticed from the letter dated 6. 5. 1995 (Annexure-L/2) of the Joint Registrar addressed to the MLA, in response to the query made by him, that the record of the respondent No. 1 Bank did not evidence any letter dated 7. 10. 1989 or 7. 12. 1989 having been issued by the said Bank. The authenticity of annexures-E and E / l. therefore, clearly becomes doubtful. This apart, even assuming that the petitioner had joined in pursuance of the letter dated 7. 10. 1989 or 7. 12. 1989, though the record does not bear testimony to this fact, and the petitioner had been presented from working, the petitioner could have raised a dispute under Section 55 of the Act. It seems that, thereafter the petitioner kept on approaching the authorities, local MLA and the MP. By letter dated 2. 6. 1995 (Annexure-L/3), Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, had clearly informed the local MLA that since the bank was an autonomous body, only a dispute could be raised in the matter in accordance with Section 55 (2) of the Act but still the petitioner continued correspondence on the subject with the authorities rather than to file any dispute. Atleast, alter the position was clarified by the Joint Registrar by communication dated 2. 6. 1995, the petitioner had no reason to approach the authorities through the local MLA and the MP who have written letters Annexure-L / 4, L / 5 and L/6 to the Joint registrar and the Collector, and he ought to have filed a dispute. Atleast, alter the position was clarified by the Joint Registrar by communication dated 2. 6. 1995, the petitioner had no reason to approach the authorities through the local MLA and the MP who have written letters Annexure-L / 4, L / 5 and L/6 to the Joint registrar and the Collector, and he ought to have filed a dispute. But even, thereafter the petitioner did not take any action and has filed this petition in the year 1998. Since the petitioner challenges the order dated 1. 10. 1985, the petition suffers from inordinate delay for which no plausible explanation has been offered. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has invited attention to the decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Dinesh Kumar Sharma v. M,p. Dugdha mahasangh Sahkari Maryadit and another, 1993 0 MPLJ 786, in support of this contention that the Co-operative Societies are not State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and are, therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the petition is entirely misconceived. In the said decision, it has been held by the full bench, that only if the society or its officers act in violation of statutory provisions and / or fail to discharge statutory public duty, a writ would lie for enforcement of statutory obligations and public duty. Learned counsel has, therefore, rightly contended that the petition, being not for enforcement of any statutory obligations or performance of public duty, is not maintainable. There is, thus, no merit in the petition and it is dismissed at the admission stage itself with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .