THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT APPEAL NO.168 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao) This appeal is by the unsuccessful writ petitioner, who, is stated to be an employee under the first respondent, sought to assail the impugned action, which has been ultimately taken by the second respondent by issuance of proceedings dated 01.01.2003 and the same was assailed in Writ Petition No.452 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition at the admission stage itself holding that it is not maintainable and if the petitioner is so aggrieved, he has got an alternative and efficacious remedy available under law to approach the A.P. Co-operative Tribunal. Hence, this appeal. Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, prima facie, it is seen that the case of the appellant-petitioner is that he is an employee of the first respondent but not that of the second respondent and therefore, any proceedings initiated against him are totally void. In support, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner sought to place reliance on several proceedings. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents filed counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the second respondent issued various proceedings and the appellant had received certain amounts, in view of which he cannot re-assail back to say that he is an employee of the first respondent. Be that as it may, in view of the disputed question as to under which respondent, namely A.P. Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Ltd., or The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co-operative Union Ltd., the appellant is an employee and since the appellant himself claims to be an employee of the first respondent, which is squarely ignored by the provisions of the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 {“the Act” for brevity}, he can as well initiate proceedings by raising a dispute under Section 61 of the Act thereof, subject to which only the other proceedings will have to follow. With liberty to the appellant to raise such dispute, which will be gone into by making out his case after adducing evidence, if necessary and disposed of in accordance with law, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. We also make it clear that in case it is found that there is dispute that the appellant is an employee of the first respondent, any proceedings initiated by the second respondent against the appellant treating him as its employee would become void. The appellant shall approach the competent authority under Section 61 of the Act within a period of four {4} weeks from today. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ____________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 13th July 2010 RRB