S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ petition is directed against order dated 27.08.1991 passed by Presiding Officer, labour Court, Allahabad in Misc. case no.34 of 1987 under Section 6-H(2) of U.P.I.D. Act 1947. The proceedings had been initiated by respondent no.3 Radhey Shyam Mishra who was an employee of the petitioner. The case of the workman was that he had wrongly been retired on 04.02.1987 on attaining the age of 58 years while age of retirement of employees like him was 60 yeas. The position of age of retirement of employees of cooperative societies is governed by U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Services Regulation 1975. Regulation 24 of the said regulations initially provided 58 years as age of retirement for all the employees. However, the said regulation was amended on 17.05.1983 effective from 30.07.1983. Through amendment it was provided that age of retirement of class IV employees should be 60 years. The labour court, accordingly, directed for payment/recovery of two years salary amounting to Rs. 19194/-. Labour Court discussed in detail regulation 24 of the aforesaid regulation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that the said legal view of the labour court is wrong. From a plain reading of Regulation 24 it is apparent that the said regulation applies to all those employees who were working at that time. Respondent workman was admittedly working in the 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner has mainly argued two points. The first is that entitlement could not be decided in proceedings under Section 6-H of U.P.I.D. Act which is equivalent to Section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act. I do not agree with this argument. Absolutely no dispute regarding entitlement was involved. The second point argued is that in view of Supreme Court authority reported in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs. Additional labour Commissioner and Ors 2007(2) JT 566 labour court has got no jurisdiction to entertain the disputes between Cooperative Societies and their employees in U.P. even though on the second technical point argument of learned counsel for the petitioner appear to be quite plausible however merely on the basis of technical ground it is not appropriate to set aside an otherwise eminently just and legal order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even if order impugned in a writ petition is technically illegal still it is not necessary to set aside the said order if setting aside the said order will bring into existence an illegal situation. Retiring the respondent no.3 two years before was quite illegal and unjust. Accordingly, as there is absolutely no doubt regarding age of retirement of employees like the respondent no.3 being 60 years hence I refuse to set aside the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction only on the ground that in view of aforesaid authority of Supreme Court in Ghaziabad Zila Sahakari Bank Ltd labour court had no jurisdiction to pass any order. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed for the above reasons.;