JUDGMENT : V. Chitambaresh, J. 1. Can the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 force an employer society to retain the services of an employee whom it no longer wishes to employ? 2. The dismissal from service of the appellant for charges of misappropriation, forgery, misconduct etc., was set aside by Ext.P12 award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court (‘the Court’ for short). The appellant was directed to be reinstated in the service of the first respondent Co-operative Bank which was affirmed by Ext.P15 judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short). But the direction to reinstate the appellant in service was set aside in the Writ Petition filed by the Co-operative Bank even after finding that the charges were not proved. The case was remitted to the Tribunal solely to fix the compensation payable in lieu of reinstatement of the appellant in service which has given rise to this Writ Appeal. 3. We heard Mr.N.Sukumaran, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. N.K.Subramanian, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent and Mrs.K.R.Deepa, Senior Government Pleader at length. 4. The appellant relied on the following observations of Mr. Justice P.N. Ravindran in Cheranallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. ( 2012 (3) KHC 834 ) as regards the jurisdiction to order reinstatement: “If the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act can order reinstatement in service of a workman who is governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, I find nothing wrong in the Co-operative Arbitration Court directing reinstatement in service. That apart, under S.100 of the Act, the jurisdiction of a civil or Revenue Court is barred only in respect of any matter for which any provision is made in the Act. S.69 of the Act makes a provision for adjudication of disputes in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of co-operative societies, which as held by this Court could take in disputes arising under disciplinary proceedings also. Therefore, merely because S.100 bars the jurisdiction of a civil Court in respect of matters for which provision has been made in the Act, it cannot be said that the Co-operative Arbitration Court could not have entertained the dispute. Therefore, merely because S.100 bars the jurisdiction of a civil Court in respect of matters for which provision has been made in the Act, it cannot be said that the Co-operative Arbitration Court could not have entertained the dispute. In the absence of a challenge by the petitioner to the constitutional validity of sub-s.(2) of S.69 of the Act, the contention that the Co-operative Arbitration Court cannot order reinstatement, is liable to be rejected.” (emphasis supplied) The contention in short of the appellant is that a remand of the case to the Tribunal to fix compensation is unwarranted especially when the findings in Ext.P12 award and Ext.P15 judgment as regards the delinquency stand affirmed. 5. A Division Bench of this Court in Kaloor Vadakkummury Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar, Mukundapuram and Others ( 1973 KLT 523 ) had occasion to observe in this regard as follows: “For the same reasoning, the powers of the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent, functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are unaffected by the powers of the Registrar under S.69 of the Act. The dispute that was resolved by the 2nd respondent by passing Ext.P5 award could not have been dealt with by the Registrar. He was not competent to deal with that question. He could not grant the relief of reinstatement which has been granted by the 2nd respondent.” (emphasis supplied) Again it was held in Sankaran v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies ( 1975 KLT 861 ) that ‘the Court will not ordinarily force an employer to retain the services of an employee whom he no longer wishes to employ’. Still later another Division Bench of this Court in Trivandrum Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies ( 2001(1) KLT 99 ) held as follows: “The jurisdiction of the Registrar under S.69 of the Act is co-terminus with that of the civil Court. The general rule is that a civil Court will not specifically enforce a contract of a personal service.” (emphasis supplied) 6. The issue is now set at rest by the decision in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhandange, (2017) 5 SCC 623 ) wherein it is held as follows: “9. We may also clarify one more aspect. Contract of personal services is not enforceable under the common law. The issue is now set at rest by the decision in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhandange, (2017) 5 SCC 623 ) wherein it is held as follows: “9. We may also clarify one more aspect. Contract of personal services is not enforceable under the common law. S.14 read with S.41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 specifically bars the enforcement of such a contract. It is for this reason the principle of law which is well established is that the civil Court does not have the jurisdiction to grant relief of reinstatement as giving of such relief would amount to enforcing the contract of personal services. However, as laid down in the cases referred to above, and also in Vaish Degree College v. Lakshmi Narain, there are three exceptions to the aforesaid rule where the contract of personal services can be enforced: “(a) In the case of a public servant who has been dismissed from service in contravention of Art.311 of the Constitution of India; (b) In the case of an employee who could be reinstated in an industrial adjudication by the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal; and (c) In the case of a statutory body, its employee could be reinstated when it has acted in breach of the mandatory obligations imposed by the statute.” 10. Even when the employees falling under any of the aforesaid three categories raise dispute qua their termination, the civil Court is not empowered to grant reinstatement and the remedy would be, in the first two categories, by way of Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution or the Administrative Tribunal Act, as the case may be, and in the third category, it would be under the Industrial Disputes Act. An employee who does not fall in any of the aforesaid exceptions cannot claim reinstatement. His only remedy is to file a suit in the civil Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages for such wrongful termination of services. Admittedly, the appellant Corporation is not “State” under Art.12 of the Constitution. The respondent also cannot be treated as a government/public servant as he was not under the employment of any Government. His only remedy is to file a suit in the civil Court seeking declaration that termination was wrongful and claim damages for such wrongful termination of services. Admittedly, the appellant Corporation is not “State” under Art.12 of the Constitution. The respondent also cannot be treated as a government/public servant as he was not under the employment of any Government. He was also not “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act as he was working as Manager with the appellant Corporation.” (emphasis supplied) None of the above conditions exists in the case on hand since the appellant is neither a public servant nor an employee involved in an industrial adjudication or the employer Co-operative Bank a statutory body. 7. The Registrar whose jurisdiction is co-terminus with that of the civil court cannot specifically enforce a contract of personal service which is barred under S.14 read with S.41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It goes without saying that reinstatement in service amounts to specifically enforcing a contract of personal service which cannot be granted by the Court. S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the other hand empowers the Labour Court to ‘direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions’ as it thinks fit. Such a power is wholly absent for the Court and the following observation in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.’s case (supra) is apposite: “Ultimately, the outcome depends upon the powers that are given to the Co-operative Court or the stipulated tribunal created under such Acts.” No power is given to the Court constituted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to direct reinstatement in service of a delinquent as can be found in S.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But a delinquent who is a ‘workman’ as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has the option to move the Labour Court even if he is an employee of the Co-operative Bank. It is the choice of the employee concerned to choose any one forum out of the two forums as held in Annamma K.A. v. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 225 (SC)). The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can order reinstatement in service on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit whereas the Court can only award damages for wrongful termination of services. 225 (SC)). The Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can order reinstatement in service on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit whereas the Court can only award damages for wrongful termination of services. The learned singe Judge was perfectly justified in remitting the case to the Tribunal to decide the compensation payable in lieu of reinstatement of the appellant in service. The decision in Cheranailur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.’s case (supra) to the extent it holds that the Court can direct reinstatement in service of the delinquent is hereby overruled. The Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.