JUDGMENT : R.K. MERATHIA, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.12.2003, passed by the learned Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 9 of 1989, directing the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the employer) to reinstate the respondent No. 2 - Om Dutt Sharma (hereinafter referred to as the employee) in service from the date of refusal to get his joining, with full back wages and other consequential reliefs. 3. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned Counsel appearing for the employer submitted that the impugned order is perverse, whereas Mr. Manish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the employee supported the impugned order and submitted that the scope of interference with the impugned order is limited under writ jurisdiction. 4. The facts, in short, are as follows. The employer is a registered Cooperative Society. The employee was appointed as Sales Assistant on 18.8.1965. He was suspended on 27.1.1974 pending enquiry on the charge of misappropriation of money, for which a criminal case was also instituted. He filed a case before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 9 of 1980, in which order of his reinstatement was passed on 31.5.1981, and accordingly, he was reinstated on 14.2.1982. He worked upto 9.11.1983. 5. The dispute between the parties is that according to the employee, he fell sick on 10.11.1983 and remained absent upto 20.12.1983 from duty and when he submitted the fitness certificate from Assistant Civil Surgeon, Jamshedpur and wanted to join, he was not allowed to join for a long time on one pretext or the other, whereas according to the employer, the employee resigned on 10.11.1983 and received Rs. 5082.90 as full and final payment on 25.12.1983. 6. The employee agitated the said dispute by filing a case in the Court of Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 19 of 1983. After considering the respective cases and the materials placed on the record by the parties, the Assistant Registrar held that the employee had resigned on 10.11.1983 and received full and final payment. Accordingly, the said Case No. 19 of 1983-84 was rejected. 7. Against the said order, the employee preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by order dated 23.9.1989 on the ground that such dispute cannot be decided under the Bihar co-operative Societies Act. 8. Accordingly, the said Case No. 19 of 1983-84 was rejected. 7. Against the said order, the employee preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed by order dated 23.9.1989 on the ground that such dispute cannot be decided under the Bihar co-operative Societies Act. 8. Then the employee filed the present case before the Labour Court (which was registered as B.S.E. Case No. 9 of 1989) agitating the same dispute again. 9. The labour Court held that the application in question was maintainable as the application filed by the employee before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Society was not maintainable. It further held that the employee had not resigned and that he was not allowed to join services by the employer and therefore he is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages from the date of refusal to accept his joining with other consequential benefits. 10. In my opinion, the impugned order is perverse and it cannot be sustained. The Labour Court could not ignore that the employee chose to file a case in the court of the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, against the disciplinary action taken against him earlier, and in that case, (Misc. Case No. 9 of 1980) order of his reinstatement was passed. If the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute regarding disciplinary action, in terms of Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, the order of reinstatement, itself was illegal. Further, this was not a case of disciplinary action, rather in this case, the dispute was whether the employee had resigned or not. Even if it is accepted that the Assistant Registrar could not decide the dispute involved in this case, under the provisions of Section 48 of the Bihar Co-operative Societies Act, the order passed by him on merits, exhibited by the employer as Ext.-C, before the Labour Court could not be ignored, while considering the respective cases of the parties. Further more, the case of the employer that the employee had removed his letter of resignation from the records, was supported by the witnesses produced on behalf of the employer, before the Labour Court, but it was ignored on wrong premise. Moreover, if the employee gave a letter of his joining on 21.12.1983, how Ext-A series could be ignored under which he received final settlement amount, thereafter i.e. on 25.12.1983 against his resignation. Whether the employee received Rs. Moreover, if the employee gave a letter of his joining on 21.12.1983, how Ext-A series could be ignored under which he received final settlement amount, thereafter i.e. on 25.12.1983 against his resignation. Whether the employee received Rs. 50/- on 20.12.1983, against earned leave, was irrelevant for this case. Thus, the Labour Court has taken into consideration irrelevant matters and has not taken into consideration the relevant matters. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 10.12.2003, passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in B.S. Case No. 9 of 1989, is set aside. However, no costs.