JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J. 1. The petitioner (Manoranjan Tiwari) is aggrieved by the order dated 20.5.1997 passed by the respondent No. 3 (Chairman, Bokaro Steel Employees OPM- Mills Zone) Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. by which he was dismissed from the services of the Society with immediate effect. The Petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.1997 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies) by reason whereon he did not interfere with the order of dismissal on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to enter into a service dispute under Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. The Petitioner has further prayed that the Respondents be directed to retain him in the service and pay him wages which has accrued in his favour. The Petitioner has also stated that while his other Writ Petition CWJC No. 4110 of 1996 (R) had been pending before this Court, wherein he had prayed for command declaring that he shall be deemed to be in continuous service since 17.11.1978 and for a writ of prohibition prohibiting the Respondents from doing away with his services on charges of alleged defalcation, the Respondents inflicted the penalty of dismissal upon him and therefore it became necessary for him to file this Writ Application. 2. According to the Petitioner, an allegation of misappropriation of the sum of Rs. 7,200/- had been made against the Petitioner on 26.4.1983 and a criminal case dated 7.8.1984 being B.S. City P.S. Case No. 220 of 1984 had also been instituted against him under Sections 408/468/420 Indian Penal Code. Prior to the lodging of the first information report, however, a notice had been given to him to deposit the said sum within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a notice which was served upon him on 10.8.1984 but before expiry of that period the first information report was lodged and the Petitioner faced trial in that case. Ultimately he was dismissed from service and in the extra-ordinary General Body Meeting of the Society the Petitioner was asked to return the sum of Rs. 7,200/- with interest thereon. 3. According to the Petitioner he deposited the said money together with interest and upon deposit of the same he was reemployed in the Society vide reappointment letter dated 11.5.1989. Ultimately he was dismissed from service and in the extra-ordinary General Body Meeting of the Society the Petitioner was asked to return the sum of Rs. 7,200/- with interest thereon. 3. According to the Petitioner he deposited the said money together with interest and upon deposit of the same he was reemployed in the Society vide reappointment letter dated 11.5.1989. Subsequently by a judgment dated 25.8.1995 the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro passed a judgment of acquittal in favour of the Petitioner on the ground that the respondents had failed to produce any paper to prove entrustment. 4. Upon pronouncement of the aforementioned judgment, the Petitioner then demanded refund of the money deposited, i.e., Rs. 19,766.39 but the respondents did nothing in the matter which compelled the Petitioner to send a number of legal notices. He also demanded continuity in service, but this was not appreciated by the respondents and instead of redressing his grievances they started giving out threats of dismissal from services. The Petitioner has further stated that on one occasion he was forced to give in writing that he would not demand his earlier wages nor make any claim in relation to continuity of services although by a letter of the Joint Registrar issued on 15.11.1995 and addressed to the respondent No. 3 it was indicated that the Petitioner was entitled to the aforementioned refund of Rs. 19,766.39 together with interest thereon and also to his salary for the period 1.1.1985 to 17.8.1999. 5. In reply to the demand of the Petitioners, the Respondents apparently sent a letter to him on 28.6.1996 informing that the money cannot be paid direct to him. Whereafter the Petitioner again sent a legal notice on 15.7.1996. Finally the Petitioner had no option but to file CWJC No. 4110 of 1996 (R) indicated above and during the pendency of the same, the Respondents issued the order of dismissal dated 20.5.1997 as contained at Annexure 2 to the Writ Application after a so called illegal departmental enquiry. According to the Petitioner, the letter of dismissal was totally illegal and the enquiry was not at all fair and the same had been resorted to only as a counter blast to the repeated demands of the Petitioner mentioned above as also for having filed CWJC No. 4110 of 1996 (R). 6. According to the Petitioner, the letter of dismissal was totally illegal and the enquiry was not at all fair and the same had been resorted to only as a counter blast to the repeated demands of the Petitioner mentioned above as also for having filed CWJC No. 4110 of 1996 (R). 6. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal, Petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Society but that was also rejected by Annexure 3, whereafter the Petitioner moved the Joint Registrar but met with failure there also on the ground that his application was not maintainable under Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1935. 7. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondent by Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents, who submitted that the Bokaro Steel Employees (OPM-Mills Zone) Credit Cooperative Society, Bokaro is a registered society under the Cooperative Societies Act and is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Society being a private society, the instant Writ Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel for the Respondents relied upon judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bokaro Steel Employee (Administrative Services) Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. and Ors. etc. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. etc. reported in 2002 (3) JLJR 83 . According to Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned counsel, the order of dismissal has been passed by the Cooperative Society and in support of the contention that it is a society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Cooperative Societies Act he has brought on record the bye-laws vide Annexure B to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. 8. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan has drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs 7 to 11 of the judgment of the Division Bench referred to above and he has stated that just like the objects of the society, funds of the society of the Bokaro Steel Employees (Administrative Services) Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., which was involved in the aforementioned judgment, the same provisions are in fact mentioned also in the bye-laws of this society and even the language thereof is identical. He has accordingly submitted that this society is not an instrumentality or agency of the State and therefore, in view of the Judgments of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Muzib reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 and taking into consideration the International Airport Authoritys case reported in AIR 1997 SC 1628 , this society cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be a State instrumentality or agency of the State. 9. Mr. V. Shivnath, learned counsel for the Petitioner, however, laid much stress upon various provisions of the bye-laws and stated that the provisions relating to area of operation, members, constitution of the managing committee, appointment of the secretary and appointment of the principal officers of the society all go to show that the Bokaro Steel Ltd. has an all pervasive control over the society and therefore it must be admitted that it is an "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, if not an instrumentality or an agency of the Government. 10. In support of the aforementioned argument, Mr. V. Shivnath relied upon the judgment of Anadi Mukta Saduru etc. v. V.R. Dudhani and Ors., reported in 1989 (2) Supreme Court Cases 691 and submitted that the Society being an "other authority", this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can issue a writ to redress the grievances of the Petitioner. 11. He also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Sahan Rai v. Sachiv, Samanya Prabhandhak and Anr., reported in (2001) 3 Supreme Court Cases 323 in support of the contention that a Cooperative Society over which the State Government has an all pervasive control and the employees are governed by the statutory rules such a cooperative society would be an instrumentality of the State and therefore, a writ would lie. He further states that the judgment of the Division Bench passed in the case of Bokaro Steel Employees (Administrative Services) Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Limited, reported in 2001 (3) JLJR 83 is per incuriam the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Shahan Rai (supra) reported in (2001) 3 SCC 323 . 12. 12. Before proceeding to deal with the rival contention of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to some of the provisions of the bye-laws of the Society which has been marked Annexure B to the Counter Affidavit, They are being reproduced below:-- "3. The objects of Society are :-- (i) To create funds to be lent out to or invested for its members or for their benefit, but subject always to the provision of Bihar and Orissa Co- operative Act (VI of 1935) and Rules framed thereunder: (ii) To encourage thrift, self-help and co-operation amongst members, and (iii) To finance for the purchase of house hold and other utility items to the members. Area of Operation.--4. The area of operation of the Society shall be confined to OPM-Mills Zone (list of Departments as per Annexure) of Bokaro Steel Limited. Membership-Admission-Cessation :-- 6. (a) The membership of the Society shall be open to the employees of Bokaro Steel Limited above the age of 18 years working in the OPM-Mills Zone (list of departments as per Annexure) and who have subscribed to the application for registration or who may be accepted later as members by the Managing Committee in accordance with these, Bye-laws. (b) Every member shall pay on entrance fee of Rs. 1/- and take at least one share of Rs. 10/- in the Society. On payment of the admission fee and share money as prescribed in these Bye-laws, he shall be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the liabilities of a member. 7. Every person desirous of becoming a member shall send in an application in the form to be prescribed by the Committee of Management. In case of rejection he shall have a right of appeal to the General Meeting within one month from the date of receipt of such refusal. The admission of member or refusal shall be duly notified to him. 8. The membership shall cease by--(i) Resignation presented to the Society and accepted by it but no member shall be permitted to resign who is in debt to the Society. (ii) Expulsion. (iii) Bankruptcy, permanent insanity or other legal disability. The admission of member or refusal shall be duly notified to him. 8. The membership shall cease by--(i) Resignation presented to the Society and accepted by it but no member shall be permitted to resign who is in debt to the Society. (ii) Expulsion. (iii) Bankruptcy, permanent insanity or other legal disability. (iv) On termination of service with Bokaro Steel Ltd. (v) Retirement from or leaving service of Bokaro Steel Ltd, and (vi) Death--A member shall also cease to be a member if he transfers all the shares held by him, in accordance with these Bye-Laws. Funds :--The funds of the Society shall consist of : (i) Paid up Share Capital subscribed by the members. (ii) Members Deposits--Every member shall compulsorily make a monthly deposit of at least Rs. 100/- from his salary against which loans will be available in emergency. (iii) Voluntary Deposit from Members and (iv) Borrowings from Bokaro Steel Ltd., State Government Co-operative Bank and other agencies. Members deposits under it (ii) and (iii) will earn interest as fixed by the Committee of Management from time to time. Each member will be issued a Pass Book of his deposit account. The total liability on account of deposits and borrowings shall not exceed to 10 (ten) times of paid-up Capital and Reserves at any time. Managing Committee 26. (a) Subject to such direction as the General Body may from time to time give, the Management of the affairs of the society shall vest in the Committee of Management and it shall be responsible for the good management of the Society. It shall be liable to the Society for any wilful neglect of the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act and Bye-laws of the Society. (b) The Managing Committee shall consist of not more than 9 members including Chairman, General Body shall elect 7 (seven) members. The Chairman and I member shall be nominated by Bokaro Steel Limited provided the Company provides to the Society initially a working capital of Rs. One lac in the shape of interest-free loan, on its registration and may further extend loans to the Society on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. , The casual vacancies will be filled up by co-option in case of elected members and by nomination by Bokaro Steel Limited in respect to nominated members. 31. One lac in the shape of interest-free loan, on its registration and may further extend loans to the Society on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon. , The casual vacancies will be filled up by co-option in case of elected members and by nomination by Bokaro Steel Limited in respect to nominated members. 31. Principal officers of the Society and their powers and duties (subject to provisions in Bihar and Orissa CO-operative Societies Act) (a) Chairman :--To be nominated by Bokaro Steel Limited. (1) shall be the Chief Executive of the Society and shall have full administrative and functional powers for its day to day working. (2) .............. (3) .............. (b) Secretary--To be appointed as a whole time officer of the Society and shall function under direct supervision and control of Chairman of the Society. He shall--(i) call the General Body meeting and meeting of the Committee of Management with the approval of Chairman. (ii) institute defend and conduct legal proceedings in the Court of law and other places on behalf of the Society and (iii) maintain Minutes Books and other statutory books and registers as required under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act 1935. He shall also be responsible for--(i) admitting new members and applications for grant of loans as per laid down policy. (ii) receiving and making money payments on behalf of the Society, as per delegation. (iii) keeping proper books of accounts and arranging audit and inspection as provided in these Bye-laws. (iv) exercising administrative control over the employees/staff of the Society subject to control of the Chairman/Committee of Management. (v) entering into correspondence with the members and outside agencies on behalf of the Society. (vi) acting as custodian of the assets of the Society. (vii) signing of the cheques and receipts as authorized. (viii) defraying contingent expenditure, as per delegation. Bokaro Steel Limited, if it considers necessary, may depute one of its employees to act as Secretary of the Society and his salary and allowances shall be borne by Bokaro Steel Limited. Further, if Bokaro Steel Limited so decides, the nominated member may act as ex-officio Secretary of the Society." 13. (viii) defraying contingent expenditure, as per delegation. Bokaro Steel Limited, if it considers necessary, may depute one of its employees to act as Secretary of the Society and his salary and allowances shall be borne by Bokaro Steel Limited. Further, if Bokaro Steel Limited so decides, the nominated member may act as ex-officio Secretary of the Society." 13. Thus from what appears from the aforementioned quotations and what emerges is that Bokaro Steel Employees (OPM-Mills Zone) Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. is a welfare credit cooperative society meant for the benefits of the employees of Bokaro Steel Ltd. It has got nothing to do with the public at large. It is confined exclusively within its members who are employee of the Bokaro Steel Limited. 14. In that view of the matter merely because one member is nominated by Bokaro Steel and merely because the Chairman is nominated by Bokaro Steel Limited and also merely because one of the employees of Bokaro Steel Limited may be deputed as the Secretary of the Society whose salary is to be borne by the Company, it cannot be said that this society takes the shape of an authority dealing with the public at large. In Anadi Muktas case reported in 1989 (2) SCC 691 the ratio decided was that no person or authority performing public duty is amenable to writ Jurisdiction. 15. The by-laws in the instant case did not suggest nor do they show that this society has anything to do with general public at large and therefore, Anadi Muktas case does not help the petitioner in any manner. 16. Similarly, Ram Sahan Rats case also cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioner in view of the fact that the bye-laws does not show that there is an all pervasive control over the society by the Bokaro Steel Limited. All that Bokaro Steel Limited does is that it has allowed the operation of the society within its area and all its employees, who are above the age of eighteen years are entitled to become its members and upon retirement from service their membership is to come to an end. Since this society is meant exclusively for the employees of Bokaro Steel Limited, it is therefore only natural that the bye- laws have been made so that the chairman and one member are nominated by Bokaro Steel Limited. Since this society is meant exclusively for the employees of Bokaro Steel Limited, it is therefore only natural that the bye- laws have been made so that the chairman and one member are nominated by Bokaro Steel Limited. Apart from nomination of the Chairman and optional deputation of an employee as the Secretary, there is nothing in the bye-laws to show that Bokaro Steel Limited has an all pervasive control over the society. In that view of the matter. Ram Sahan Rais case also is of no help to the Petitioner. 17. At this juncture it would be necessary to advert to paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Division Bench reported in (2002) 3 JLJR 83 . The said paragraph 9 reads as follows :-- 9. The tests for determination as to when a Body/Organisation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of a Government, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. In the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, reported in AIR 1981 SC 487 , the Supreme Court noticed the earlier judgment in the International Airport Authoritys case, AIR 1979 SC 1628 and summarised the relevant tests, as follows : "The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an Instrumentality or agency of Government may now be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authoritys case. AIR 1979 SC 1628 . These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities", it must be realized that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the Government within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authoritys case as follows :-- (1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an Instrumentality or the agency of Government." (2) "Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character." (3) "It may also be a relevant factor whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is the State conferred or State protected." (4) "Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality." (5) If the functions of the corporation of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government." (6) Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a Corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authoritys case, be an authority and, therefore, State within the meaning of the expression in Article 12." 18. In the instant case there is nothing on record to prove "all pervasive control" by the Bokaro Steel Limited and therefore it is held that this cooperative society cannot be held to be an other authority nor it can be said that it is an instrumentality or agency of the State. That being the position no writ can be issued by this Court. 19. Mr. V. Shivnath on an alternative argument has submitted that the order dated 5.6.1997 has been passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society and therefore to that extent the Writ Petition is maintainable. He has submitted that the Joint Registrar has wrongly come to a conclusion that he has no authority to deal with the matter. This argument of Mr. Mr. V. Shivnath on an alternative argument has submitted that the order dated 5.6.1997 has been passed by the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Society and therefore to that extent the Writ Petition is maintainable. He has submitted that the Joint Registrar has wrongly come to a conclusion that he has no authority to deal with the matter. This argument of Mr. V. Sivnath is also rejected and it is held that the order of the Joint Registrar is perfectly in accordance with law. 20. In this context Section 48 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1935 begins with the words that all disputes shall be referred to the Registrar provided that the dispute does not relate to disciplinary action taken by the society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society. Section 48 reads thus : 48. Disputes.--(1) If any dispute touching the business of a registered society (other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society or its managing committee against a paid servant of the society) arises- (a) amongst members, past members, persons claiming through members, past members or deceased members, and sureties of members, past members or deceased members, whether such sureties are members or non-members; or (b) between a member, past member, persons claiming through a member, past member or deceased member, or sureties of members, past members or deceased member, whether such sureties are members or non-members and the society, its managing committee or any officer, agent or servant of the society; or (c) between the society or its managing committee and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society; or (d) between the society and any other registered society; [or] (e) between a financing bank authorized under the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 16 and a person who is not a member of a registered society; such dispute shall be referred to the Registrar; Provided that on claim against a past member or the estate of a deceased member shall be treated as a dispute if the liability of the past member or of the estate of the deceased member has been extinguished by virtue of Section 32 or Section 63. 21. 21. In the case of Tisco Oriya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, reported in AIR 1975 Patna 208 it has been held that if a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society is allowed to be covered by Section 48, the same will be manifestly absurd, palpably unjust, absurdly inconvenient and will lead to anamolous results. 22. For the reasons stated above, it is held that there is no merit in this Writ Application. Accordingly, this Writ Application is dismissed. 23. This order shall, however, not prejudice the case of the petitioner in the event he desires to move any other alternative forum.