JUDGMENT : M.M. Das, J. - As the aforesaid three writ petitions arise out of similar facts and involve common question of law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment. 2. The Petitioner was an employee of the Orissa State Handloom Weaver's Co-operative Society (hereinafter referred to as the Society'). Disputes were raised u/s 68 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), which were numbered as Dispute Case Nos. 19 of 1994, 1 of 1996 and 2 of 1996 respectively before the Arbitrator, in the office of the Director of Textiles, Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The Petitioner filed applications before the Arbitrator in all the cases raising a question of maintainability of the same. The Arbitrator in his orders under Annexures-1 to the writ petitions came to the conclusion that the disputes are maintainable u/s 68 of the Act and rejected the applications filed by the Petitioner. The said orders were challenged before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in revision cases, being Revision Case Nos. 19 of 2004, 21 of 2004 and 20 of 2004 respectively. The revisional Court, relying upon the decisions in the cases of Gokulananda Patel Vs. Secretary, Sundargarh Wholesale Consumers Co-operative Stores Ltd. and Others, and Pentakota Srirakulu Vs. The Co-Operative Marketing Society Ltd. came to the conclusion that the disputes are maintainable u/s 68 of the Act and dismissed the revision petitions. The said revisional orders passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies were challenged before the learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa in Revision Case Nos. 9 of 2004, 11 of 2004 and 10 of 2004 respectively. The learned Tribunal, by the orders passed in the aforesaid revision cases, after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, confirmed the orders passed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies as well as the Arbitrator, holding that the disputes u/s 68 of the Act are maintainable. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner has filed the present writ applications for appropriate relief. 3. The sole question raised before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that all the three forums below have acted contrary to law in holding that a dispute u/s 68 of the Act can be raised against an employee of the Society and further holding that such dispute is maintainable before the Arbitrator. 4. 3. The sole question raised before us by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that all the three forums below have acted contrary to law in holding that a dispute u/s 68 of the Act can be raised against an employee of the Society and further holding that such dispute is maintainable before the Arbitrator. 4. Considering the limited question raised, we heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the aforesaid question. 5. Mr. Mohapatra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, reiterating the arguments raised before the Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, submitted that Section 67 of the Act is very clear that whenever there is an audit report and action is to be taken on such report, the said Section 67 is attracted and not Section 68 of the Act. As in the present case, the dispute case has been filed alleging misappropriation of money committed by the Petitioner, which is based on an audit report, Section 68 of the Act cannot be attracted. He further contended that the audit having been conducted by a private Chartered Accountant firm, the said audit is improper and, therefore, the dispute cases u/s 68 of the Act cannot be based on such a report. Learned Counsel vehemently argued that since a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the Petitioner, which is pending adjudication in W.P.(C) No. 2952 of 2004 filed by the Society, the proceeding u/s 68 of the Act cannot be held to be maintainable. 6. Mr. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Opp. Party No. 1, drawing the attention of this Court to the facts of the case, submitted that the Petitioner was the Branch Manager of its New Delhi Sales Center during 1984-88 and was in-charge of Bhubaneswar Sales Center-1, from 1988 to 1998. During this period, there was shortage of stock and cash and the accounts of the two branches were audited through a Chartered Accountant firm. The dispute cases were initiated u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of the said report. The Petitioner filed written statements in the dispute cases, but the proceedings in the dispute cases were stalled due to the interim stay orders passed in the revision cases by the Registrar Co-operative Societies and it was only after this Court directed disposal of those cases, by order dated 20.9.2001 in O.J.C. Nos. The Petitioner filed written statements in the dispute cases, but the proceedings in the dispute cases were stalled due to the interim stay orders passed in the revision cases by the Registrar Co-operative Societies and it was only after this Court directed disposal of those cases, by order dated 20.9.2001 in O.J.C. Nos. 1419, 1420 and 1421 of 2001, those revision cases were heard and dismissed by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies. In the dispute case No. 19 of 1994, evidence was adduced on behalf of the Society. As the Petitioner did not adduce any evidence, the case was closed on 17.1.2004. The Petitioner, thereafter, on 17.1.2004 filed applications in the said dispute cases questioning the maintainability of the proceedings. From the averments made in the writ petitions, as well as in the counter affidavits, the only issue raised before us is, as to whether the dispute cases are maintainable u/s 68 of the Act or not, as contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the ground that there is provision for initiating surcharge proceedings u/s 67 of the Act by the Auditor General of Co-operative Societies. 7. Mr. Patnaik further contended that surcharge proceedings are initiated suo motu or on filing an application by the Liquidator, Committee or any Creditor when it is found during enquiry or inspection or winding up of the society that any person has misappropriated or retained any money or property of the society. Whereas a dispute case u/s 68 of the Act is filed when a dispute arises between a society and its past or present employees. It was argued by him that Section 68 of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause and therefore, it is not necessary that such a dispute can be filed only on the basis of an audit report as contemplated u/s 67 of the Act. On the other hand, "Audit" refers to an audit u/s 62 of the Act. Therefore, according to him, the dispute u/s 68 of the Act can be filed independent of any audit report u/s 62 of the Act. Learned Counsel referred to the decision in the case of Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. On the other hand, "Audit" refers to an audit u/s 62 of the Act. Therefore, according to him, the dispute u/s 68 of the Act can be filed independent of any audit report u/s 62 of the Act. Learned Counsel referred to the decision in the case of Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Narayana Rath and Others, wherein, the learned Counsel submitted that the Apex Court set aside the Judgment of this Court in the case of Narayan Rath v. Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank, reported in ILR (1974) Cut 204, in which, this Court held that the dispute u/s 68 of the Act against an employee of the Society is not maintainable in view of the specific provision of Section 67 of the Act. He further submitted that following the aforesaid decision, this Court in the case of Gokulananda Patel (supra) also held that a dispute u/s 68 of the Act in such circumstances can be maintained. 8. For convenience, Sections 62, 67 and 68 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 are quoted herein below: 62. (1)(i)- The Auditor-General shall audit, or cause to be audited by an Auditor duly authorised by him in that behalf, the accounts of every Society for each Cooperative year and complete such audit within six months of the closure of the year, at least once or for such number of times as may be directed by the State Government from time to time in respect of any Society or class of Societies. Provided that the Auditor General of Co-operative Societies, Orissa may engage one or more Chartered Accountants to cause the audit of the Accounts of the Cooperative Society and the fees shall be paid by the Society both to the Chartered Accountant and the Government for the audit of its accounts for each Co-operative year at such rate as may be fixed by the Government. (ii) The Auditor-General may, of his own motion or on a requisition from the Registrar and shall, on a directive from the State Government, arrange for special audit, re-audit or concurrent audit of the accounts of any Society or class of Societies on day-today or such other basis as may be directed. (iii) The Auditor-General shall so arrange the audit that the same Auditor shall not audit the accounts of the same Society for two consecutive Cooperative Years. (iii) The Auditor-General shall so arrange the audit that the same Auditor shall not audit the accounts of the same Society for two consecutive Cooperative Years. (iv) A Society having an annual business turnover of more than twenty-five lakhs, shall arrange for internal audit of its accounts on a day-to-day basis or on such basis as may be directed by the Auditor-General; (2) The audit under Sub-section (1) shall be conducted according to the rules and shall include: (a) a verification of cash balance and securities; (b) a verification of the balances at the credit of the depositors and creditors and of the amounts due from the debtors of the society; (c) and examination of overdue debts, if any; (d) a valuation of the assets and liabilities of the society; (e) an examination of the transaction, including the monetary transactions of the society within such limits as may be prescribed; (f) an examination of the statement of accounts, including the statement or receipts and charges, the balance-sheet, the profits and loss account and the statement of net profits available for distribution in accordance with this Act and the rules for the preceding year, to be prepared by the committee in such form as may be directed by the Auditor-General; (f-1) an examination of the irregularity in terms of this Act, Rules and the Bye-laws discovered, if any, in the constitution, functioning and business of the Society, affecting the financial position or otherwise of the Society) (g) any other matter that may be prescribed or directed by the (Auditor General). (3) The statements of accounts including the balance-sheet, the statement of profit and loss and the statement of net profits thus audited together with the modifications, if any, made therein by the Auditor-General and certified by him shall be final and binding on the society. (3) The statements of accounts including the balance-sheet, the statement of profit and loss and the statement of net profits thus audited together with the modifications, if any, made therein by the Auditor-General and certified by him shall be final and binding on the society. (4)(a) The (Auditor General) or the Auditor shall, at all times, have access to all the books accounts, documents, papers, securities, cash and other properties belonging to or in custody of the society and shall in so far as is necessary for carrying out any of the purposes of this Act, have power to summon and enforce the attendance of any person and to examine him on oath or affirmation and to compel the production of any books, accounts, documents, securities, cash and other properties at any place at the Headquarter of the society or any branch thereof and to issue commission for the examination of witnesses by the same means and so far as may be, in the same manner as is provided in the case of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 5 of 1908. (b) The (Auditor General) or the Auditor: may require any person present before him to furnish any information or to produce any document in his possession or power. (c) The (Auditor General) or the Auditor shall have power to take or to authorize the taking of such copies of the documents or of any entries therein as may be considered necessary. Copies so taken shall, when certified in such manner as may be prescribed, be admissible in evidence for any purpose in the same manner and to same extent as the original document or the entries therein. (5) Every person who is, or has at any time been, an officer or employee of the society and every member and past member of the society shall furnish such information in regard to the transactions and working of the society as the (Auditor General) or the Auditor may require. (5) Every person who is, or has at any time been, an officer or employee of the society and every member and past member of the society shall furnish such information in regard to the transactions and working of the society as the (Auditor General) or the Auditor may require. (6) If the Auditor-General has reason to believe that the continuance in office of any Officer or Office-bearer of a Society during audit of its accounts will be detrimental either to the ascertainment or facts relevant to the audit, or to the furnishing of compliance to the audit objections or his directives, if any, in that regard, he may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, Rules and the bye-laws, by order, assigning reasons therefore, suspend the Officer or Office bearer concerned for the whole or such portion of the period of audit as he may deem proper: Provided that the period of such suspension shall, in no case, exceed six months. (7) The Auditor-General, or any person authorized by him to conduct audit under this section shall, during the course of any such audit, have the same powers as the Registrar is competent to exercise under Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (5) of Section 65. 67. (7) The Auditor-General, or any person authorized by him to conduct audit under this section shall, during the course of any such audit, have the same powers as the Registrar is competent to exercise under Clause (c) of Sub-section (3) and Sub-section (5) of Section 65. 67. Surcharge- (1) If, in the course of any audit, enquiry, inspection or the winding up a Society, it is found that any person, who is or was entrusted with the organization or management of such Society or who is or has at any time been an office, office-bearer or employee of the Society, has made any payment contrary to this Act, Rules or the bye-laws, or has caused any deficiency in the assets of the Society by breach of trust, wilful negligence or otherwise, or has misappropriated or fraudulently or unauthorisedly retained any money or other property belonging to the Society, the Auditor-General or person authorized by him by an order in writing in that behalf, on his own motion or on the application of a liquidator, the committee or any creditor, after giving the person concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard, may make an order in the manner prescribed, requiring him to repay or restore the money or property or any part thereof, with interest at such rates, or to pay such contribution, costs or compensation as he may consider just and equitable, and all such orders shall have effect without prejudice to any other action that may be lawfully taken against him: Provided that no proceedings under this section shall be initiated after the expiry of a period of four years from the date any act or omission as aforesaid is first detected during audit, inspection, inquiry or the winding up of a Society, as the case may be. (2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sub-section (1), any authority competent to initiate, institute or dispose of any proceedings under this section as it stood prior to the date of commencement of Section 35 of the Orissa Co-operative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1991 shall continue to be so competent until appointment of the Auditor-General and upon such appointment, all proceedings pending before any such authority as on the date of the said appointment shall stand transferred to the Auditor General who shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. 68. 68. (Disputes which may be referred to arbitration - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Society, other than a dispute required to be referred to the Tribunal and a dispute required to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and a dispute relating to non-payment of contribution to the Cooperative Education Fund referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 56, shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are among the following, namely: (a) the Society, its Committee, past Committee, any past or present Officer or Office bearer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant, or the nominee, legal heir or representative of any deceased officer, Office bearer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the Society; or (b) a member, past member, or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the Society, or of a Society which is a member of the Society; or (c) a surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, whether such surety is or is not a member of the Society; or (d) any other Society. Explanation-I- A claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a Society, by or to a person or Society mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d), shall be a dispute touching the business of the Society within the meaning of this section, even in case such claim is admitted and the only points at issue are the ability to pay and the manner of enforcement of payment. Explanation-II-A claim by a Financing Bank against a member of a Society which is a member of the Financing Bank and indebted to it for the recovery of dues payable by such member to the Society shall be a dispute touching the business of the Financing Bank within the meaning of this section. Explanation-III-The question whether a person is or was a member of a Society or not shall be a dispute within the meaning of this section. Explanation-IV-A claim by a surety for any sum or payment due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan advanced by a Society shall be a dispute within the meaning of this section. Explanation-IV-A claim by a surety for any sum or payment due to him from the principal borrower in respect of a loan advanced by a Society shall be a dispute within the meaning of this section. Explanation-V-The question whether a person or any one of his family members is carrying on any business prejudicial to the business or interests of the Society, or whether such family member has common economic interest with such person shall be a dispute within the meaning of this section). (2) Any person, society, (or Financing Bank) referring dispute to the Registrar under Sub-section (1) shall deposit in advance such fees as may be prescribed. (3) No dispute referred to in this section shall be entertained in any Civil Court and decision of the Registrar in this respect shall, subject to the provisions Section 70, be final. (4) If any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is a dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a society, the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any Court. (5) Nothing in this section shall, where the disputes relate to the recovery of the dues of any society from any of its member, be construed to debar any financing Bank of such society from referring such dispute to the Registrar. 9. In the case of Nayagarh Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court after reproducing Section 68 of the Act held as follows: For the present purpose, Section 68 requires two conditions to be satisfied (i) that the dispute must be one touching the business of a society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society against a paid servant and, (ii) that the dispute must be one involving parties who are among those mentioned in the section. Here the parties concerned are among those listed in this section, and the dispute also touches the business of the society, the nature of the dispute being as stated in explanation I. Prima facie therefore, the requirements of Section 68(1) are satisfied in these cases. Here the parties concerned are among those listed in this section, and the dispute also touches the business of the society, the nature of the dispute being as stated in explanation I. Prima facie therefore, the requirements of Section 68(1) are satisfied in these cases. Then again, the Supreme Court referring to Sub-section (4) of Section 68 of the Act while allowing the appeal filed by the society therein, observed that the Registrar being the competent authority to decide the question of maintainability, before the Registrar doing so, the High Court could not have allowed the writ petition. Holding thus, remanded the matter to the Assistant Registrar fixing a stipulated period for disposal of the dispute case. However, as quoted above, the Supreme Court has observed in the said decision that prima facie the requirements of Section 68(1) of the Act have been satisfied in the case before it. 10. Since the question raised before us was not raised before the Supreme Court, we find that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 11. We are, therefore, to see as to whether the conditions required to be fulfilled to maintain a dispute case u/s 68 of the Act have been fulfilled in the present case or not. 12. Before proceeding further in this direction, as we find that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gokulananda Patel (supra) being posed with almost similar facts, where a dispute was raised basing on an audit report against an employee of the society, referring to an earlier decision in the case of Narayan Rath (supra) dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner therein holding the dispute to be maintainable. It is an admitted position that the disputes raised in the present cases relate to the constitution and management of the business of the Society. Therefore, one of the conditions of Section 68 of the Act that the dispute must be touching the business of the Society other than the dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society against a paid servant is fulfilled. The facts of the present case also manifest that the dispute raised touches the business of the Society. Accordingly, Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act is satisfied. 13. The facts of the present case also manifest that the dispute raised touches the business of the Society. Accordingly, Sub-section (1) of Section 68 of the Act is satisfied. 13. In view of the above position, it cannot be said that the same can only be adjudicated as a surcharge proceeding u/s 67 of the Act. We accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the opp. parties that since the dispute raised touches the business of the Society, it cannot be said that the same is only based on the audit report submitted by the Chartered Accountant. 14. We, therefore, find no error apparent en the face of the impugned orders under Annexures-1, 2 and 3 to the writ petitions, as we find that the disputes raised are well within the purview of Section 68 of the Act and the orders holding thus, cannot be interfered with. 15. In the result, therefore, the writ petitions, being devoid of merit, are dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs. B.P. Das, J. 16. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed