Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd vs The Presiding Officer

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10436 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2024

Kerala High Court

Kerala State Cooperative Bank Ltd vs The Presiding Officer on 11 April, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
                       WP(C) NO. 14994 OF 2024


PETITIONER:

          KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD, CO-BANK TOWERS,
          PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
          EXECUTIVE OFFICER JORTY M CHACKO, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O
          CHACKO, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. B, SREE DHANYA, ESWARA
          VILASAM ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695033

          BY ADV THOMAS ABRAHAM


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL
          TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD
          BUILDING, 8TH FLOOR, MANORAMA JUNCTION, KADAVANTHARA,
          PIN - 682020

    2     REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES
          PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE,
          BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695004


          SRI.P.G.JAYASHANKAR


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 14994/24
                                    2

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioner asserts that Ext.P5 Statutory Appeal has been pending before the 1st respondent, along with an application for interim orders; but that even before the same has been considered, the 2nd respondent is pursuing recovery action against them, on the strength of Ext.P4. They, therefore, pray that the 1st respondent be directed to consider Ext.P5 Appeal, along with the accompanying petitions; and further that the 2nd respondent be directed to defer all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 order.

2. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent - Sri.P.G.Jayashanker, responded to the afore submissions of Sri.Thomas Abraham - learned counsel for the petitioner, saying that if the petitioner only requires Ext.P5 Appeal to be taken up and disposed of by the 1st respondent, his client will not stand in the way of appropriate orders being issued by this Court, however, praying that a time frame be fixed for such purpose.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and direct the 1st respondent - Presiding Officer, Central Government WPC 14994/24 3 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, to take up Ext.P5 Appeal, as also its accompanying petitions and dispose them of, as expeditiously as is possible.

If, the Appeal is not able to be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the interim applications will be so done and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner immediately thereafter.

Needless to say, until such time as either of the afore is done and the order communicated to the petitioner, all further coercive action pursuant to Ext.P4 will stand deferred.

Sd/-

RR                                            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                      JUDGE
 WPC 14994/24
                                 4

                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14994/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED

13/02/1998 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/05/2023 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P.(C) NO.17076 OF 2011 Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS NO.KR/TVM/2575/DAMAGES CELL/2023-24/3604 ISSUED UNDER 14B OF THE ACT DATED 07/07/2023 Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/TVM/2575/DAMAGES CELL/2023-24/13732 DATED 05/03/2024 Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE P.F APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2024 ALONG WITH ACCOMPANYING INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM