1. Vikram Singh vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Ltd.,Udaipur & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No.46/01) 2. Mahesh Chandra Vyas vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Ltd.,Udaipur & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No.47/01) 3. Ganesh Mal Joshi vs. Managing Director, Rajasthan Tribal Area Development Cooperative Federation Ltd.,Udaipur & Ors. (D.B.Civil Special Appeal(W) No.48/01) Date of Order :- 22.08.2008. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA None present for the appellants. Mr.Vijay Bishnoi, for the respondents. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellants, however, Mr.Vijay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the respondents. All these three appeals, since arise out of the common order, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. The writ petitioners approached this Court by way of writ applications praying therein for payment of equal pay for equal work on the post of Driver cum Helper. It was claimed that though, they were appointed as Driver cum Helper, they are performing the duties of Driver also and therefore, they were entitled to get equal pay for equal work for the post of Driver. A reply was filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ applications stating therein that the writ petitioners, though, were appointed as Driver cum Helper, they never performed the work of Driver and therefore, the writ applications were liable to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge of this Court on appreciation and pleadings of the parties refused to grant relief to the writ petitioners holding that they have efficacious remedies under the provisions of Section 75 of the Cooperative Societies Act( in short “the Act” hereinafter) to make a prayer like the prayers made in the writ applications. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 75 of the Act, the learned Single Judge observed that in case, the writ petitioners approach the competent authority for deciding their claim, the same would be considered on merit, if it would be presented within four weeks from the date of the order. The order impugned appears to be innocuous and on the ground of availability of alternative redressal forum, the necessary direction was given to approach the competent authority under Section 75 of the Act for redressal of their grievances. Seeing the nature of the order, in our view, nothing remains to be decided herein. These appeals accordingly are dismissed. (SANGEET LODHA),j. (NARAYAN ROY)CJ. Aditya/-