1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated. 20.1.2007, passed by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, by virtue of which he has advised petitioner to work hard for improving financial health of bank and work in coordination with the management of bank, so that bank comes out of financial difficulty. 2. Petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that, Court below has not properly resolved the dispute according to provision of law. That Court below instead of deciding the question under law has misdirected itself by disposing off petition without rendering any finding on the question in controversy. 3. I have heard both the counsels at length and perused the order impugned. Record of court below has also been perused. 4. From the perusal of record, it appears that petitioner along with other two petitioners filed an arbitration application u/r 3 of Jammu Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. Jammu Employees service Rules 1997 read with Section 63 ) of J&K Cooperative Societies Act for directing the respondents to grant revision of pay scales and allowances at par with the Officers of J&K Bank Ltd. 5. In the petition before court below, it has been stated that petitioners were working in lower scale and are similarly situated Officers of J&K Bank. General Secretary of association approached the management of bank for bringing them at par with pay scale and allowances applicable to the Officers of J&K Bank Ltd. That on 18th of March, 1998, a memorandum of understanding was arrived between Managing Director and Officer association and it was agreed that scales of pay of Officers of Jammu Central Cooperative Bank shall be equated with scale applicable to JK Bank. That this memorandum of understanding was followed by a order dated 24.3.1998 passed by Managing Director of Bank, whereby it was agreed that whenever a change of pay scale and allowances of Officers of J.K. Bank would take place same effect will be given to officers of their bank to that of Officer of JK Bank. It was also agreed that effect shall take place w.e.f. Ist April, 1988. 6. That Officers of J.k Bank were placed in revised pay scale vide Order dated 3.1.2001, w.e.f. 1.3.1998. That vide Order dt. 30.8.2001 Dy Gen Manager of J.K Bank ordered yet another revision of pay Scale w.e.f. 1.4.2001. 7. It was also agreed that effect shall take place w.e.f. Ist April, 1988. 6. That Officers of J.k Bank were placed in revised pay scale vide Order dated 3.1.2001, w.e.f. 1.3.1998. That vide Order dt. 30.8.2001 Dy Gen Manager of J.K Bank ordered yet another revision of pay Scale w.e.f. 1.4.2001. 7. That petitioners thereafter, approached management many times and apprised them of two revisions in pay scale of j.k bank officials and requested them to revise their pay scale in term of memorandum dt. 19.3.1998, but respondents have avoided. That a legal notice was sent on 24.12.2001 and respondent vide order dt. 25.2.2002 issued order of revision of pay from 1.1.2002 and not from 1.4.1998. Accordingly, it was prayed before the Court below that their pay scale be revised from 19.3.1998 along with H.R.A. 8. Bank filed objections and stated that Bank is a Society and has its area of operation within Jammu Province only. Whereas JKBank is banking company and is an instrument of State having vast net work. That petitioners have no locus standi to pressurize such like issues of revision of pay. That as per revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.2000 is concerned, same were granted after due consultation with representatives of Employees and funds availability. That revision of grade cannot not be construed as a dispute for referring it as arbitration. 9. The Court below after hearing the arguments disposed off the petition. The relevant extract of order reads as under: "It is surprising that how then management of the Bank has signed such an Agreement with its employees, keeping in view the fact that the Bank is continuously incurring losses and has come under the purview of Section 11 of the Banking Regulations Act, 1949. 10. Keeping the above in view, the petitioners are advised to work hard, improve the financial health of the Bank and work in coordination with the Management so that the Bank comes out of present financial difficulty. This shall pave way for better emoluments/perks for the employees ad the Bank shall also be able to provide Bonus to its members as a result of good working. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed off. 11. It is also mentioned here that many others official also filled a similar petition before court below. Court below by way of common order disposed of two petitions. 12. Both the petitions are accordingly disposed off. 11. It is also mentioned here that many others official also filled a similar petition before court below. Court below by way of common order disposed of two petitions. 12. Aggrieved by this order only petitioner has come up before this court. 13. All banks work in different types of conditions. Respondent bank has branches in Jammu province only, so it has limited business, whereas j.k bank is big institution having branches all over country. A Bank Employee has no legal right to claim that they should be paid equal pay to that of employee of other bank, especially when bank has no sufficient money and are suffering loss, so does not have financial capacity to pay. For revision of pay from back date, sufficient money is required and it is prerogative of management of bank to see, economic availability of Bank. 14. Further counsel for petitioner has failed to satisfy the court as to how revision in pay comes under the purview of dispute as refereed in act or rule. 15. One more aspect in the case has been noted with regard to maintainability of petition before court below. Perusal of petition filled before court below, it reveals that, it has been filled under section 63 of old act of 1960. Petition has been filled in 2003, whereas at that time new act was in force, because new act of 1989 came in force on 3.12.1999 and relevant section is 70 and not 63. So petition under section 63 of repealed act was not maintainable before court below. 16. In view of what has been discussed above this petition has no merit, hence dismissed. However bank may consider the grievance of petitioner after coming out of loss. 17. File of the court below is sent back along with a copy of this order. The file of this court be consigned to record after due completion.