ORDER 1. This petition under Article 27 of the Constitution is directed against the judgment dated 14.11.2011 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal, Bhopal (In short “the Tribunal”) whereby it has allowed First Appeal No. 61/2010 filed by the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Panna (respondent No. 2) and set aside the order dated 25.5.2010 passed by the Joint Registrar in case No. 55(2-26)/2008. 2.The petitioner first served the District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Panna as Lamps Manager and then as Clerk Grade-I for almost 25 years. He was, however, compulsorily retired by the District Cooperative Central Bank vide order dated 23.8.2008. Aggrieved, the petitioner rushed to this High Court and filed writ petition No. 12023/2008 (s) which was disposed of as withdrawn by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.10.2008 with a liberty to him to raise a dispute within 15 days from today under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (in short “the Act”) before the appropriate authority. The learned Single Judge also observed that if such a dispute was raised the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law. 3. The petitioner, therefore, raised a dispute on 12.11.2008 before the Joint Registrar Cooperative Society by filing a petition under section 55(2) of the Act. He also filed an application for condonation of delay because he could not raise the dispute within 15 days as directed by the High Court on the ground that he had received the copy on 18.10.2008 and then fill sick. The cooperative Bank in reply defended its action of petitioner’s compulsory retirement and also pleaded that the dispute raised was barred by limitation. The Joint Registrar vide order 25.5.2010 after hearing the parties set aside the order dated 23.8.2008 of compulsory retirement of the petitioner and directed the Cooperative Bank to reinstate him with back wages. 4. The Cooperative Bank challenged the order dated 14.11.2011 in First Appeal No. 61/2010 before the Tribunal and submitted that since the dispute was not raised by the petitioner within a period of 15 days as directed by the High Court, the Joint Registrar committed an illegality in entertaining the same. The Cooperative Bank also averred that the Joint Registrar ought to have first decided the issue regarding limitation before going into the merits of dispute. The Cooperative Bank also averred that the Joint Registrar ought to have first decided the issue regarding limitation before going into the merits of dispute. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 14.11.2011 has held that the petitioner ought to have raised his dispute on 1.11.2008 i.e. within 15 days as per the order dated 17.10.2008 of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 12023/2008 (s) but he did so on 12.11.2008 i.e. after 11 days and, therefore, the Joint Registrar could not have entertained the dispute. On this finding the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the Cooperative Bank and set aside the order dated 25.5.2010 of the Joint Registrar. 5. It is to be noted that after passing of the judgment dated 14.11.2011 by the Tribunal, the petitioner filed Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 427/2012 before this High Court seeking extension of time granted in Writ Petition No. 12023/2008(s) for raising a dispute. The same learned Single Judge vide order dated 13.4.2012 disposed of the Miscellaneous Civil Case by clarifying that while passing order dated 17.10.2008 in Writ Petition No. 12023/2008(s) he did not mean to state that the dispute by the petitioner could not have filed after 15 days or that it could not be entertained thereafter. 6. This being the situation, after aforesaid clarification by the learned Single Judge we are of the view that the Tribunal committed an illegality in setting aside the order dated 25.5.2010 of the Joint Registrar solely on the ground that he could not have entertained the dispute raised by the petitioner after 15 days from the date of order dated 17.10.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 12023/2008(s). We accordingly quash the judgment dated 14.11.2011 and remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide the first appeal afresh on merits. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.