Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 2293 of 1970. 45 Appeal by special leave	 from the order dated May 4	 1970 of the Central Registrar of Co operative Societies	 New Delhi in Appeal No. CR/1/70. Harbans Singh	 for the appellant. Remeshwar Dial and A.D. Mathur	 for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri	 C. J. This appeal by special leave is against the order of the Central Registrar of Cooperative Societies New Delhi dismissing the appeal filed by Panchshila Industrial Cooperative Society (Multi Unit) appellant before us against the award passed by the Arbitrator (Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies Rohtak) dated October 7	 1969	 in respect of the dispute between the Gurgaon Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.	 Gurgaon respondent before us	 and the appellant. The Central Registrar held that he was not the appropriate appellate authority against the award in question. The only question which arises before us is whether the Central Registrar was the appropriate authority on the facts of this case. The relevant facts are these. The respondent Bank approached the Registrar of Cooperative Societies Haryana for resolving a dispute between the Bank and one of its members appellant before us. The Registrar by his order dated February 17	 1968	 in exercise of the powers vested in him under section 56 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act	 1961	 referred the dispute to the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies Rohtak for decision. The arbitrator gave the award on October 7	 1969	 directing that the appellant do pay to the respondent in all Rs. 16	05	658 20 together with interest at the rate of six and a half per cent per annum until the realisation of the principal amount viz. Rs. 11	52	535 00. The appellant as mentioned above filed an appeal against this award before the Central Registrar. The respondent Bank is a co operative society governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act 1961. Section 55(1) of this Act inter alia provides that if any dispute touching the constitution management or the business of a co operative society arises between a member 46 and the society such dispute shall be referred to the Re gistrar for decision and no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of such dispute. Section 55(2) provides that for the purposes of sub section (1) a claim by the society for any debt or de mand due to it from a member or the nominee heirs or legal representatives of a deceased member whether such debt or demand be admitted or not	 shall be deemed to be a dispute touching the constitution	 management or the business of the co operative society. Sub section (3) of section 55 provides that "if any question arises whether a dispute referred to the Registrar under this section is or is not a dispute touching the constitution management or the business of a cooperative society	 the decision thereon of the Registrar shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court. " There is no doubt that the dispute between the respondent Bank and the appellant fell within section 55 and was properly referred to arbitration under that section. It is however	 contended that the appellant was registered in December 1955 under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act	 1955	 and by virtue of the 	 and section 5A of the Multi Unit Co operative Societies Act	 1942	 the appellant has ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act because it has become a multi unit co operative society. There is no doubt that by virtue of the 	 and section 5A of the Multi Unit Co operative Societies	 Act	 1942	 the appellant has become a multi unit co operative society and the Multi Unit Co operative Societies Act applies to it. But that Act is for the incorporation	 regulation and winding up of co operative societies with objects not confined to one State	 and it has no impact on section 55 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act	 1961	 inasmuch as the appellant remains a member of the co operative society	 namely	 the respondent Bank. There is nothing in the provisions of the Multi Unit Co operative Societies Act to indicate that a multi unit co operative society cannot be a member of a co operative society governed by the Punjab Act of 1961. If the appellant continues to be a member	 then the terms of section 55 apply and a dispute can be referred to arbitration under that section. An appeal against the at award lies under section 68 of the Punjab Act of 47 1961 to the Government of the decision or order was made by the Registrar	 and to the Registrar if the decision or order was made by any other person. It is quite clear therefore	 that the Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The learned counsel next contends that the Central Registrar should not have dismissed the appeal but returned the memorandum of appeal for presentation to the proper authority. There is no statutory provision enabling the Central Registrar to do so. At any rate	 if an appeal is filed before the appropriate authority under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act	 1961	 that authority will no doubt take into consideration the provisions of section 14 of the 	 read with section 29(2) and decide whether the appeal should be entertained or not. In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. K.B.N. Appeal dismissed.

The respondent bank is a co operative society governed by the Punjab Co operative Societies Act	 1961. A dispute between the bank and the appellant	 one of its members	 was referred by the Registrar of Co operative Societies	 in exercise of the powers vested in him by section 55 of the Act	 to the Deputy Registrar	 Co operative Societies for arbitration. The appellant filed an appeal against the award before the Central Registrar of Co operative Societies. The Central Registrar dismissed the appeal holding that he was not the appropriate appellate authority	 under the Act. In appeal to this Court the appellant con tended that it was registered in 1955 under the Punjab Co operative Societies Act 1955 and by virtue of the and section 5(A) of the Multi Unit Co operative Societies Act	 1942	 it had ceased to be governed by the provisions of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act	 because	 it had become a multi unit co operative Society. Dismissing the appeal	 HELD : There is nothing in the provisions of the Multi unit Cooperative Societies Act to indicate that a multi unit co operative society cannot be a member of a co operative society governed by the Punjab Act of 1961. The multi unit co operative societies Act is for the incorporation	 regulation and winding up of co operative societies with objects not confined to one State and it has no impact on section 55 of the Punjab Co operative Societies Act	 1961	 in as much as the appellant remains a member of the Co operative Society	 namely	 the respondent bank. If the appellant continues to be a member then the terms of section 55 apply and a dispute can be referred to arbitration under that section. An appeal against that award lies under section 68 of the Punjab Act of 1961 to the government if the decision or order was made by the Registrar and to the Registrar if the decision or order is made by any other person. Therefore the Central Registrar had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.