IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 14836 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
R.RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 61 YEARS
SHARON, VENKAVILA, PAZHAKUTTY P.O.NEDUMANGAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
T.R.HARIKUMAR
ARJUN RAGHAVAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE NEDUMANGAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. T 364
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-695 541.
2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE NEDUMANGAD HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD NO T 364,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, NUDUMANGAD P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-695 541.
BY ADV M.HEMALATHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14836 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P9 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court (hereinafter referred to as 'the Arbitration Court' for short) rejecting the objections raised as preliminary issues, with respect to the domestic enquiry conducted against him by the respondent - Society.
2. Sri.T.R.Harikumar - learned counsel for the petitioner explained that various objections were raised, inter alia, that the Memo of Charges issued to his client was not by the competent Authority, but by the Sub Committee; that the entire disciplinary action was vitiated on account of delay; that the Memo of Charges was, in fact, issued at a time during the pendency of an earlier Arbitration case, which had been pending before the competent Authority. He added that it is from the Award in the said Arbitration case that his client came to be aware that there was a decision terminating his services and hence, that the entire process has been done without following due procedure and in blatant violation of the statutory Scheme.
3. Sri T.R. Harikumar argued that, therefore, the Arbitration Court had a duty to consider his client's contentions in its proper perspective, rather than have framed a question merely as to whether WP(C) NO. 14836 OF 2021 3 the domestic enquiry is vitiated or not. He contented that the specific contentions of his client ought to have been considered by the Arbitration Court as preliminary issues; before Ext.P9 could have been passed.
4. In response, Smt.Hemalatha - learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P9, the Arbitration Court had gone into every aspect in detail to find that petitioner cannot be granted any benefit, particularly because he was refusing to co-operate with the disciplinary enquiry. She argued that a person who comes to equity must do equity and therefore, that the Arbitration Court had no other option, but to reject his preliminary objections and issue Ext.P9 order.
5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is indubitable that the proceedings before the Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is not hinged on equity, but on statutory principles. The mere fact that petitioner did not co-operate with the domestic enquiry cannot be a reason to deny him the opportunity of his objections being considered in its proper perspective. Since the petitioner had already raised preliminary objections before the Arbitration Court, it was incumbent upon the said Court to have considered it, particularly on his contention that the Charge Memo had been issued by an incompetent Authority, and that too, pending WP(C) NO. 14836 OF 2021 4 an Arbitration case filed by the Bank before the competent Authority.
6. In the afore circumstances and since I cannot find Ext.P9 to have considered all such aspects in its proper ambit, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition and set aside the same, so that all the objections of the petitioner can be reconsidered in terms of law.
Resultantly, but clarifying that I have not entered into the merits of Ext.P9 or the rival contentions of the parties, except for the purpose of formulating my opinion as afore; I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the Arbitration Court to reconsider the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and then to issue an appropriate order thereon, after hearing both sides.
In order to obtain an expeditious compliance of the afore directions, I direct the parties to mark appearance before the Arbitration Court at 11.00 am on 20.07.2022; and every endevour made by the said Court to dispose of the preliminary objections in terms of law, as expeditiously as is possible thereafter.
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 14836 OF 2021 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14836/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLANT DATED 1.9.1994 IN ARC NO 49 OF 1994 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.7.2008 IN WPC NO 18492 OF 2008 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 5.9.2008 IN ARC 49 OF 1994 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.8.2010 IN RP NO 126 OF 2008 OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE CONVENER OF THE DISCIPLINARY SUB COMMITTEE DATED 3.1.1995 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT DATED 29.10.2008 IN ARC NO 155 OF 2008 Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2008 IN IA NO 136 OF 2008 IN ARC NO 155 OF 2008 Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.2.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNMENT Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.9.2020 IN ARC NO 155 OF 2008 OF THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.NHCS/5/DE/95 DATED 23-
09-1995.
Exhibit R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03-06-1995 BEARING NO. NHCS/6/DE/95 DATED 03-06-1995.
Exhibit R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22-06-1995 BEARING NO. NHCS/7/DE/95 DATED 22-06-1995 WP(C) NO. 14836 OF 2021 6 Exhibit R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY NEWS PAPER 'MALAYALA MANORAMA' DATED 31-12-1995.
Exhibit R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE SITTING DATED 10-
02-1996.
Exhibit R1(F) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NOS. 4,5,6,7 AND 8 DATED 10-07-1993.
Exhibit R1(G) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22-11-1993. Exhibit R1(H) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-11-1993. Exhibit R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6-5-1994. Exhibit R1(J) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-05-1994. Exhibit R1(K) TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 7-5-1994 BEFORE THE SUB COMMITTEE. Exhibit R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SUB COMMITTEE DATED 28-06-1994.