Judgment : 1. The petitioner was employed as General Manager (ic) in the first respondent Co-operative Society. He retired from service on 30.09.2010. The first respondent passed an order of recovery of Rs.81,566 by an order dated 14.10.2010. 2. The petitioner took up the matter before the second respondent against the aforesaid order under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act 1983 which was rejected by the second respondent by an order dated 30.05.2012. 3. Realising the mistake that the second respondent has no jurisdiction to decide the service matters, the petitioner has filed a Revision Petition dated 3.11.2012 under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act before the third respondent. 4. The third respondent passed the impugned order dated 22.7.2013 dismissing the Revision Petition on the sole ground that the petitioner should have filed an appeal under Section 152 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act before the appellate authority against the order of the second respondent dated 30.05.2012 that was passed under Section 90 of the Act. The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the order dated 22.07.2013 and for a direction to the third respondent to dispose of the Revision Petition dated 03.11.2012 under Section 153 of the Act on merits. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court dated 02.02.2012 in W.P.No.2384 of 2012 in V.Venkataraman vs. The Thiruvannamalai District Co-operative Bank Ltd., rep. by its Specil Officer, Thiruvannamalai District. 7. In my considered view the said judgment squarely applies to the facts of this case. The said judgment is based on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in P.Eswaramoorthy and others Vs. R.J.B.Leoraj and others reported in 2008 5 MLJ 238 . The judgment is of short one and the entire judgment is extracted hereunder:- 1. "The writ petitioner is working as a Field Manager in the respondent Bank. In this writ petition, he has come forward to challenge the order passed by the Cooperative Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai cum District Court, Tiruvannamalai in C.T.A.No.10/2003 dated 30.11.2010. 2. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.11.2010 refused to entertain the appeal made by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Cooperative Societies Act challenging the order passed by the Sub-Registrar in Arbitral proceedings made in A.R.C.No.617/98-99 dated 27.08.2003. 2. The Tribunal by its order dated 30.11.2010 refused to entertain the appeal made by the petitioner under Section 152 of the Cooperative Societies Act challenging the order passed by the Sub-Registrar in Arbitral proceedings made in A.R.C.No.617/98-99 dated 27.08.2003. The Tribunal held that the relief claimed by the petitioner is entirely covered by the settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 3. It transpires that the petitioner claimed in his Arbitration Proceedings initiated under Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act a sum of Rs.8,022/- towards monthly travel allowance for the period from March 1997 to December 1997. The Arbitrator rejected the case of the petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2003. It was challenging the said order, the appeal under Section 152 of the Cooperative Societies Act was filed. 4. It is not clear as to why the petitioner moved the Arbitrator in respect of his service conditions in the Cooperative Society. Such an arbitration under Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act is not maintainable as Section 90 of the Cooperative Societies Act itself excludes any arbitration in the matter of service conditions of an employee in the Cooperative Society. Therefore, the petitioner's mere application before the Arbitrator itself is without jurisdiction. The filing of appeal as against the order before the Tribunal is not valid. 5. A division bench of this Court headed by P.K.Misra, J. (as he then was) vide judgment in P.Eswaramoorthy and others Vs. R.J.B.Leoraj and others reported in 2008 5 MLJ 238 Madras has held that in such matters, the employee will have remedy by way of Section 153 of the Cooperative Societies Act or before any other appropriate forum outside the Act. 6. In such circumstances, the writ petition itself is not maintainable and the arbitration proceedings initiated by him in A.R.C.No.617/98-99 is also not maintainable. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, since the petitioner moved the forum without jurisdiction, it is open to him to institute appropriate proceedings before the appropriate authority. No costs." 8. In view of the above judgment, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent to decide the Revision Petition of the petitioner dated 03.11.2012 received by him on 05.11.012 on merits and in accordance with law. No costs." 8. In view of the above judgment, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the third respondent to decide the Revision Petition of the petitioner dated 03.11.2012 received by him on 05.11.012 on merits and in accordance with law. The third respondent is directed to pass final orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.