JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The instant petition stands directed, against, the order, rendered on 23.1.2019 by the Deputy Registrar (Consumer) Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, at, Shimla, (i) wherethrough, the endeavor of the petitioner, to, recourse, the, remedy constituted, in, Section 72, of, the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1968 (for short "the Act"), became, declined to him. 2. The fulcrum of the lis, engaging, the contesting litigants, is, focused, upon, the connotation(s) becoming ascribed, vis-a-vis, the mandate, of, Section 72(2) as, occurring in the Act, and, conspicuously, vis-a-vis, the statutory coinage(s) borne there-within, the apposite statutory coinage, whereof, becomes couched, in, the phraseology "if any dispute touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society" hence arising amongst, the, categories of the statutorily contemplated litigant(s) enumerated therein. (i) The connotation, as, carried by the afore, is, upon, the aggrieved, hence, falling within, the, afore statutorily enumerated categories, thereupon, his becoming enabled, to, recourse, the, remedy contemplated, in, Section 72, of, the Act, (ii) and, obviously when an employee of the cooperative society concerned, does not, become enumerated therein, (iii) thereupon any order, of, dismissing, discharging or removing, an employee, hence rendering employment, with any, cooperative society, becoming not construable, to be, a, dispute hence touching the constitution, management, or the business of a co-operative society, nor, hence any aggrieved employee, of, a, cooperative society becomes enabled to recourse, the, afore statutory provisions. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner, is not, an employee, of, the cooperative society concerned, rather, is engaged, as, a commission agent, in, the cooperative society concerned, for, assisting the latter in pursuing, its, mercantile activities, (a) whereupon, hence dehors, his not, being an employee of the cooperative society, rather, his afore capacity, though, does not specifically exist in the mandate, of, Section 72 of the Act, to be an apposite category, hence, enabling him, to, canvass the remedy constituted, under, Section 72 of the Act, (b) nonetheless per se, thereupon, it, would not be befitting, to, deprive the petitioner, to, recourse the mandate, of, section 72 of the Act, (c) as, given his assisting the cooperative society, in, the afore capacity, does, touch upon the business, of, the cooperative society concerned, and, thereupon he becomes empowered, to, recourse the remedy constituted, in, Section 72, of, the Act. 4. 4. In view of the above, there is merit in the petition, and, the same is allowed, and, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.