Judgment :- The petitioner was a store keeper in the Reserve Bank of India. He also became a member of the impleaded second respondent-The Reserve Bank Employees Cooperative Credit Stores. The petitioner borrowed certain amounts from the second respondent Society. Since he has defaulted in payment, arbitration proceedings were initiated against him in A.R.C.No.12/95-96. 2. The Arbitrator conduced an ex-parte proceedings and by an award dated 7.5.1996, computed a sum of Rs.37,638.95 and deductions were started from the petitioner's salary from the year 1998 till 2002. At that time, the petitioner did not question the arbitration award before the appellate Tribunal constituted under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. 3. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, reached the age of superannuation and therefore, E.P. proceedings were initiated in E.P.No.34 of 2002 to attach his terminal benefits. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred the writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18199 of 2003 challenging the said E.P. proceedings. 4. In the said writ petition, this Court held that the gratuity is not liable for attachment in terms of Section 60(1)(g) of C.P.C. read with Sections 13 & 14 of the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 and therefore, the Court held that the E.P. proceedings attaching the gratuity, is invalid and the writ petition was allowed. 5. It is thereafter, the second respondent Society started auction proceedings to attach the properties of the petitioner, by issuing notice under Rule 199 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Rules, 1988. It was also informed that if the amounts were not paid, appropriate Revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated. It is at this stage, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the attachment notice dated 28.3.2005. 6. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the petitioner did not implead the second respondent Society, but however, the writ petition was admitted on 28.3.2008. Pending the writ petition, interim stay was granted. It was thereafter, the second respondent Society by filing M.P.No.2 of 2008 got himself impleaded. 7. The petitioner also filed M.P.No.4 of 2008 for impleading the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Adayar. The said petition is yet to be ordered. 8. In the meanwhile, the impleadd second respondent Society filed the vacate stay petition in M.P.No.3 of 2008 together with the supporting affidavit, dated 1.8.2008. 7. The petitioner also filed M.P.No.4 of 2008 for impleading the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Adayar. The said petition is yet to be ordered. 8. In the meanwhile, the impleadd second respondent Society filed the vacate stay petition in M.P.No.3 of 2008 together with the supporting affidavit, dated 1.8.2008. In the affidavit it was stated that since there is a decree passed against the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the petitioner cannot question the consequential E.P. proceedings. 9. The petitioner never took steps to set aside the ex-parte award of the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The Society is a Cooperative institution and funds are raised from the business of the stores; unless the dues are settled the Society will be put to great prejudice. 10. To get over the said objection, the petitioner now filed the additional typed set stating that as early as 4.12.2006, he has filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order along with a petition to condone the delay of 3860 days. The out come of the said application has not been revealed. The provision under which the said petition is filed is also not set out. In any event, as against the award passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, the Act provides for appeal and the petitioner has not chosen to avail any appellate remedy before the appellate Tribunal. As admitted by him, subsequent to the award, deduction of money from his salary was started and therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner was aggrieved by the initial award. In any event, even though he has succeeded in quashing the attachment proceedings in respect of the terminal dues, that it does not mean that the same would absolve him from the other dues, recoverable from the properties owned by him. Therefore, no case is made out to entertain the writ petition. 11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there is no order as to cost. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.