Judgment ( 1. ) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the record of the case, I find no merit in the writ. ( 2. ) IT is a writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It seeks to challenge the order, dated 18-10-2000 (Annexure P-8) whereby it is held that claim submitted by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Society is barred by limitation. The petitioner is not satisfied with the impugned order hence, has come up in writ. ( 3. ) PETITIONER (since retired) was an employee of respondent No. 1-a Co-operative Bank. He had some grievance about less payment of salary as compared to his juniors amounting to Rs. 5,253/and also about his claim of Seniority. He therefore, filed a dispute on 3-11-1983 before the Deputy Registrar under Section 64 read with Section 55 of the Act. It is this dispute which was held to be time barred and secondly held to have been filed under Section 55 (2) of the Act rather than that of Section 64 of the Act. It is this finding which is impugned in this writ. ( 4. ) I find no ground to take any other view than the one taken by the Tribunal. Firstly it was a dispute filed only under Section 55 (2) of the Act which specifically deals with the service disputes inter se employees and employer of a Co-operative Society. In other words, Section 64 deals with all other disputes except service dispute whereas Section 55 (2) deals with only service disputes. When the Legislature has prescribed two different forums by providing two different sections, under the Act for different type of disputes, then in such an event, both operate in different fields and can not overtake each other. Both can not exist together. ( 5. ) THE present dispute admittedly relates to service dispute inter se parties and hence, it can never be filed under Section 64 but it has to be filed and entertained under Section 55 (2) of the Act. I, therefore, concur with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue which in my opinion was rightly recorded. ( 6. ) SO far as finding of limitation is concerned, even that finding is also liable to be upheld being properly recorded. I, therefore, concur with the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this issue which in my opinion was rightly recorded. ( 6. ) SO far as finding of limitation is concerned, even that finding is also liable to be upheld being properly recorded. Section 55 (2) provides for a limitation of 30 days in filing a dispute to be counted from the date of the impugned order sought to be impugned in the claim. One can not dispute as is clear from the record and the finding rendered that the right to file a claim accrued to the petitioner on 4-9-1982 when the adverse decision rejecting petitioners claim was communicated to petitioner. So the right to file the claim was accrued on 4-9-1982 hence, the claim could be filed and/or rather it should have been filed on or before 4-10-1982. Whereas, it was filed after 4-10-1982, i. e. , in November, 1982. It was, therefore, barred by time hence, was rightly held to be so. ( 7. ) I, therefore, do not find any merit in the writ, which fails and is dismissed.