Nirmala Xavier vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 2116 Ker

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT

                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

               THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943

                                   WP(C) NO. 3997 OF 2020

PETITIONER:

                NIRMALA XAVIER,AGED 63 YEARS,W/O. JOHN JACOB,
                CHAMBAKULATH HOUSE, EDAKRISHIVAYAL, EDAKKAD, WEST HILL P O, KOZHIKODE
                DISTRICT-673005.

                BY ADVS.
                      SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
                      SMT.M.BINDUDAS
                      SRI.K.C.HARISH

RESPONDENTS:


      1         THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
                CO-OPERATION(C) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
      2         THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
                JAWAHAR SAHARAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, JAGATHAI, THAIKADU PO,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
      3         THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G)
                OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES(G), SAHARAKARANA
                BHAVAN PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004.
      4         THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                CONCURRENT AUDITOR, KOZHIKODE BHAVANA NIRMANA SAHAKARANA SANGHAM
                GROUP, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673004.
      5         THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD
                NO.F.-1244, HEAD OFFICE, KARANNUR, ELATHOOR PO, KOZHIKODE-673333,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
      6         THE MANAGING COMMITTEE,KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 4-
                1244, HEAD OFFICE, KARANNUR, ELATHOOR P O, KOZHIKODE-673333, REPRESENTED
                BY ITS PRESIDENT.

                GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN
                SRI.P.P.JACOB



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2021 ALONG WITH

WP(C).28907/2019, THE COURT ON 24.02.2022, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020                  2



                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

          THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 5TH PHALGUNA, 1943

                                  WP(C) NO. 28907 OF 2019

PETITIONER:


               THE KARANNUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F.1244
               KARANNUR, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.

               BY ADV P.P.JACOB

RESPONDENTS:


      1        NIRMALA XAVIER
               CHAMBAKULATH HOUSE, EDAKRISHI VAYAL, EDAKKAD, WEST HILL P. O.,
               KOZHIKODE - 673005.

      2        THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATION (C)
               DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

      3        THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), KOZHIKODE
               OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G),
               PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004.

      4        THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
               CONCURRENT AUDITOR, KOZHIKODE BHAVANA NIRMANA SAHAKARANA
               SANGHAM GROUP, KOZHIKODE - 673004.

               SRI.R.T.PRADEEP
               GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN



      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.12.2022, ALONG

WITH WP(C).3997/2020, THE COURT ON 24.02.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020          3



                                 JUDGMENT

W.P.(C).No.28907/2019 is filed by the Karannur

Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as

'society') and W.P.(C).No.3997/2020 is filed by Smt.

Nirmala Xavier, who retired from the service of the

society as Accountant (hereinafter referred to as

'employee').

2. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the

exhibits marked in W.P.(C).No.28907/2019. The employee

joined the service of the society as Junior Clerk on

02.01.1986. Alleging that she had committed certain

misconduct, she was suspended on 22.09.1990 and was

compulsorily retired from service by order dated

31.05.1991. This dispute was the subject matter of ID.

No.33/1993 on the file of the Labour Court, Kozhikode

and the Labour Court, by award dated 28.01.2000, directed W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 4

the management to reinstate her with continuity of

service and payment of Rs.25,000/- in lieu of back

wages.

3.The society filed O.P. No.14892/2000 before this

Court challenging the award and pursuant to an order

passed in application filed under Section 17B of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Rs.20,000/- was paid to the

employee.

4. During the pendency of the Original Petition, on

the basis of various discussions, the employee submitted

Ext. P1 terms of settlement before the society. The terms

and conditions of the settlement are as follows:-

"i) I should be reinstated in service as Junior Clerk in Karannur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, forthwith, and the Bank should give me promotion to the higher post as and when vacancies occur, foregoing my claim for seniority.

(ii) I should be given continuity in service on condition that I shall not claim any monetary benefits for the period from 30-5-1991 till the actual date of reinstatement.

W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 5

(iii) A sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) paid by the Karannur Service Co-operative Bank Limited to me on 22-08-2001 can be adjusted towards the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) awarded by the Labour Court, Kozhikode in its Award dated 28.1.2000, in lieu of back wages. Balance amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) should be paid by the Karannur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, within one week from today.

(iv) I shall not claim any amount on the basis of the interim order dated 6.2.2002 in C.M.P. No. 58891/2000 in O.P. No.14892/2000 W of the Honourable High Court of Kerala, towards section 17 B wages.

(v) I hereby undertake not to file any Execution Petition before the Labour Court, Kozhikode for executing the Award dated 28.01.2000 in I.D. No. 33/1993."

5. Ext. P1 terms of settlement was accepted by the

Board of Directors of the society and by resolution dated

08.03.2002 resolved to appoint the employee as Junior

Clerk, for the time being, with continuity of service and

reinstated her in service on 11.03.2002 as Junior Clerk

w.e.f 30.05.1991. Following her reinstatement, O.P.

No.14892/2000 was dismissed as withdrawn.

6. While the employee was continuing in service as

Junior Clerk, the Secretary of the society retired from

service and consequential vacancies arose in the society

and she made a claim in the consequential vacancy of

Accountant, having regard to the fact that the

reinstatement was with continuity of service. However,

the society declined her claim and promoted and posted

some other person as Accountant. The employee took up

the matter with the Joint Registrar and the Registrar and

being unsuccessful, filed appeal before the Government

and the Government, by order dated 28.11.2008,

allowed her appeal and directed the society to reinstate

her in service with effect from 30.05.1991 with seniority

and continuity in service.

7. The society filed W.P.(C).No.36732/2008

challenging the aforesaid order of the Government and

the employee filed W.P.(C).No.2671/2009 for W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 7

implementing the said order. This Court, by Ext. P2

common judgment, held that the direction of the

Government cannot be upheld in toto in view of certain

sacrifices agreed to be made by the employee in Ext. P1

settlement. However, it was declared that she was

entitled to be promoted as Accountant in the vacancy

which arose on 01.07.2002 as a result of retirement of

the Secretary of the society on 30.06.2002. Accordingly,

this Court set aside the order passed by the Government

to the extent it ordered restoration of the entire benefits

awarded in I.D. No.33/1993 and directed that the

employee will be given the benefits as provided in the

settlement accepted by the Board of Directors of the

society.

8.The society preferred W.A. No. 1736/2009 against

the said judgment and the Division Bench of this Court, W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 8

by Ext. P3 judgment, dismissed the Writ Appeal with a

clarification that though the employee has to be

promoted as Accountant w.e.f 01.07.2002, she shall be

paid the arrears of salary only with effect from the date,

when other employees were paid the arrears i.e., from

30.9.2003.

9. According to the society, they have implemented

the above judgments and the employee was given

promotion as Accountant w.e.f 01.07.2002 and she

retired from service on 30.11.2013. It is also the case of

the society that they have paid the contribution payable

towards the pension fund covering the period of

suspension and the employee is getting full pension. The

society refers to Ext. P4 proceedings of the Assistant

Registrar which objected to the entry regarding earned

leave in the service book of the employee during the

period she has not worked. The society has also

produced Ext.P6 letter of the employee acknowledging

that she has verified her service book and she has no

complaint regarding the entries therein regarding the

loss of pay leave.

10. While so, three years after retirement, the

employee preferred an application dated 02.02.2017

before the Government for their intervention for salary

during the period of suspension, earned leave, promotion

and other service benefits. Pursuant thereto, the

Government passed Ext.P7 order after hearing the

employee and the society directing the society to pay full

salary as well as the earned leave benefits to the

employee within 15 days from the receipt of the order.

11.The society filed W.P.(C)No.35367/2017

challenging Ext.P7 order contending that they have W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 10

already paid off the entire amounts in terms of Ext. P2

judgment and that the Government was not justified in

issuing Ext. P7, on the basis of a subsequent request

made by the employee. This Court, by Ext. P8 judgment,

remitted the matter to the society to decide and intimate

the employee through an order as to any amounts or

benefits are still due to be paid to her; and if the stand of

the society thereafter is that no amounts are due, then it

will be upto the employee to invoke appropriate

remedies that are available to her in law against such

order. The relevant portion of Ext.P8 judgment is

extracted hereunder:

"...According to the learned Senior Counsel, there is no reason why the petitioner Bank should have challenged Ext. P7 because if, as asserted by them, nothing is due to his client, then they only have to inform her accordingly, so as to enable her to invoke and pursue other alternate remedies, including under Section 69 of the KCS Act.

4. I have examined Ext. P7 as also Ext. P2 W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 11

judgment and I am of the view that it will not be justified or prudent for this Court at this stage to state affirmatively anything regarding the merits of the contentions of the rival parties. I am of the opinion that it will be better to leave it to the Bank to answer the claims of the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7 and to direct them to communicate appropriately to the 1st respondent, so that she can then invoke legal redress, if so warranted.

In the afore perspective, I order this writ petition and direct the Bank to first afford an opportunity of being heard to the 1st respondent and intimate her through an order if any amounts or benefits are still due to be paid to her, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and if the stand of the Bank is thereafter that no amounts are due, then it will be upto the 1st respondent to invoke appropriate remedies that are available to her law against such order."

12. Pursuant to Ext. P8 judgment, the society, by

Ext. P9 proceedings, communicated its decision to the

employee that no amount is due and payable to her.

13. The employee then preferred Ext. P10 complaint

before the Joint Registrar stating that an amount of Rs.

23,45,241/- is due and payable to her and to issue

direction to the society to release the amount with W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 12

interest.

14. The Joint Registrar directed the society to verify

the details of the claim raised by the employee and to

report. A hearing was held and the society reported that

no amount is due to the employee. The Joint Registrar

passed Ext. P13 order directing the society to pay the

amount as directed in Ext. P7 order by considering the

claim statement to be filed by the employee and

observing that in the event of not paying the amount,

the employee is at liberty to invoke the provisions of the

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Act', for short) to implement the order

of the Government.

15. The society has filed W.P.(C).No.28907/2019

challenging Ext.P13 order and the employee has filed

W.P.(C).No.3997/2020 to implement Ext. P13 (Ext. P6 in

the said writ petition). This Court, by order dated

29.10.2019 in W.P.(C).No.28907/2019, has stayed all

consequential proceedings pursuant to Ext. P13 for one

month which was extended until further orders on

22.01.2020.

16. According to the society, no amounts are due or

payable to the employee. The Joint Registrar has passed

Ext. P13 order directing the society to pay the amount as

directed in Ext. P7 order. In Ext.P7 order, the

Government has directed the society to pay full salary as

well as the earned leave benefits to the employee. In

Ext. P2 judgment which was confirmed by Ext. P3

judgment, this Court had set aside order dated

28.11.2008 passed by the Government to the extent it

ordered restoration of the entire benefits awarded in I.D.

No.33/1993. Therefore, the society contends that, the W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 14

Government has no authority to reopen issues that are

decided and attained finality as per Exts. P2 and P3

judgments. The society further contends that the only

remedy available against Ext. P9 proceedings of the

society is to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court

invoking the provisions under Section 69 of the Act.

Accordingly, the society prays for setting aside Ext. P13

order of the Joint Registrar.

17. The employee would contend that Ext. P13 order

is legal and valid and the attempt of the society is to

delay the payments due to her. It is also contended that

the writ petition filed by the society is not maintainable

as the society has an alternative remedy under Section

83 of the Act against Ext. P13 order. It is further

contended that the dispute raised by the employee

against Ext. P9 is purely a monetary dispute and the Joint W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 15

Registrar has jurisdiction to pass Ext.P13. According to

the employee, her contentions in Ext. P10 are entirely

different from the issues addressed by this Court in Exts.

P2 and P3 judgments and what has been directed in Ext.

P13 is compliance of Ext. P7 order of Government after

verification of the claim made by her in tune with the

records with the society. It is also contended that Ext. P7

order is not set aside in Ext. P8 judgment and is binding

on the society. Accordingly, the employee prays for

direction to implement Ext. P13 order of the Joint

Registrar.

18. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has

filed a counter affidavit stating that Ext. P13 order has

been passed in terms of Ext. P8 judgment of this Court

and also Ext.P7 order of the Government. It is further

stated that Ext. P13 order has been passed as the

Government directed to take appropriate decision on the

representation of the employee. Summarising the

circumstances that led to issuance of Ext. P13 order, the

deponent who issued Ext. P13 states that, the society

violated Ext. P8 judgment and there is no dispute coming

under the purview of Section 69 of the Act and the issue

is not a monetary or non-monetary dispute, but only

compliance of the order of this Court.

19. The learned Government Pleader has filed a

statement dated 17.11.2021 in W.P.(C).No.3997/2020

stating that Ext. P7 was passed by the Government

under Rule 189 (f) (sic) of the KCS Act, 1969 and Ext. P13

order is passed by the Joint Registrar under Section 66

(a) (sic) of the Act.

20. Heard Sri. P.P. Jacob, the learned counsel for the

petitioner in W.P.(C).No.28907/2019, Sri. R.T. Pradeep,

the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.

(C).No.3997/2020 and Sri. K.M. Faizal, the learned

Government Pleader for the official respondents.

21. This Court attempted to find out whether an

amicable settlement could be arrived at and Sri. P.P.

Jacob, the learned counsel for the society, on

instructions, maintained the stand that no amounts are

due to the employee and all amounts as per Ext. P1

settlement and Exts.P2 and P3 judgments have been

paid to the employee and the amounts were received by

the employee without any objection. The counsel for the

society also filed a statement dated 06.12.2021 relating

the amounts paid to the employee pursuant to her

retirement. It is stated that an amount of Rs. 8,13,742/-

was paid by the society to the employee pursuant to her

retirement. Accordingly, the writ petitions were heard on W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 18

merits.

22. In Ext.P2 judgment confirmed by Ext. P3

judgment, this Court had set aside the order dated

28.11.2008 passed by the Government to the extent it

ordered restoration of the entire benefits awarded in I.D.

No.33/1993 and directed that the employee will be given

the benefits as provided in Ext. P1 settlement accepted

by the Board of Directors of the society. In Ext. P7 order,

the Government has directed the society to pay full

salary as well as the earned leave benefits to the

employee. The Joint Registrar has passed Ext. P13 order

directing the society to pay the amount as directed in

Ext. P7 order. Clause 5 (ii) of Ext. P1 settlement accepted

by the Board of Directors of the society reads as under:-

"(ii) I should be given continuity in service on condition that I shall not claim any monetary benefits for the period from 30-5-1991 till the actual date of reinstatement."

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, as observed and held by this Court in Ext. P2

judgment, in view of certain sacrifices agreed to be

made by the employee in Ext. P1 settlement, the

Government cannot order restoration of the entire

benefits awarded in I.D. No.33/1993 and the employee

can be given the benefits as provided in Ext. P1

settlement accepted by the Board of Directors of the

society. The employee is, therefore, not entitled for

salary for the period from 30.05.1991 to 11.03.2002, the

date of reinstatement. The said issue has become final

by Exts. P2 and P3 judgments to the above extent and

cannot be re-agitated before any forum.

23. The employee approached the Government for

their intervention for salary during the period of

suspension, earned leave, promotion and other service W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 20

benefits and pursuant thereto, the Government passed

Ext. P7 order directing the society to pay full salary as

well as the earned leave benefits to the employee. The

society challenged Ext. P7 order contending that no

amount is due and payable to the employee. This Court,

by Ext. P8 judgment, remitted the matter to the society

to decide and intimate the employee through an order as

to any amounts or benefits are still due to be paid to her;

and if the stand of the society thereafter is that no

amounts are due, then it will be upto the employee to

invoke appropriate remedies that are available to her in

law against such order.

24.Pursuant to Ext. P8 judgment, the society, by Ext.

P9 proceedings, took a decision to the effect that no

amount is due and payable to the employee. The claim

of the employee was declined. According to Sri. Jacob, W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 21

Ext. P7 order does not survive in the light of Ext. P9

decision of the society passed pursuant to Ext. P8

judgment and the only remedy available against Ext. P9

proceedings is to approach the Co-operative Arbitration

Court invoking the provisions under Section 69 of the

Act. However, Sri. Pradeep would contend that, the

dispute raised by the employee against Ext. P9 is purely

monetary and the Joint Registrar has jurisdiction to pass

Ext. P13. Sri. Pradeep would further contend that the

contentions of the employee in Ext. P10 is entirely

different from the issues addressed by this Court in Exts.

P2 and P3 judgments.

25. Chapter IX of the Act deals with Settlement of

Disputes and Section 69 deals with disputes to be

decided by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and

Registrar and the relevant part of Section 69 is extracted W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 22

hereunder:-

"69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises,-

.................................

(h) between the society and a creditor of the society, such dispute shall be referred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under S.70A, in the case of non- monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute; and no other Court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute.

2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the following shall also be deemed to be disputes, namely: .....................................

(d) Any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of S.80, including their promotion and inter se seniority."

(emphasis supplied)

26.After Ext. P8 judgment and Ext. P9 proceedings

issued by the society, the employee preferred Ext. P10

complaint before the Joint Registrar claiming a total

amount of Rs. 23,45,241/- with interest towards back W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 23

wages for the period from 22.09.1990 to 30.11.2013,

promotion salary, amounts due under provident fund,

bonus, benefits towards medical aid, leave salary,

earned leave, gratuity and such other amounts as may

be due to her on examination by the Joint Registrar. The

stand of the society is that no amount is due and

payable to the employee. According to the employee,

her contentions in Ext. P10 are entirely different from the

issues addressed by this Court in Exts. P2 and P3

judgments. On going through Ext. P10, the various

claims made by the employee therein cannot be

considered as claims for monetary reliefs pure and

simple which is to be adjudicated by the Joint Registrar,

but these are disputes arising in connection with her

employment under the society to be adjudicated by the

Co-operative Arbitration Court. The issue of monetary W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 24

benefits can only be a consequential one subject to the

outcome of the adjudication by the Co-operative

Arbitration Court. Though this Court in Exts. P2 and P3

judgments have found that employee is not entitled for

salary for the period from 30.05.1991 to 11.03.2002, the

date of reinstatement, in Ext. P10 she has claimed back

wages for the period 22.09.1990 to 30.11.2013, besides

other benefits arising in connection with her employment

under the society. Her entitlement for earned leave has

to be determined with reference to Ext. P4 proceedings

of the Assistant Registrar which objected to the entry

regarding earned leave in the service book of the

employee during the period she has not worked. If the

contention of the employee is that her claims in Ext. P10

are different from the issues addressed by this Court in

Exts. P2 and P3 judgments, the same require W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 25

adjudication under Section 69 (2) (d) of the Act. None of

the amounts stated to be due to her has been

determined and quantified and therefore the employee

cannot contend that the dispute raised by her against

Ext. P9 is purely monetary. The Division Bench of this

Court in Thalassery Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v.

Mukundan [2021 (1) KLT 663] has held that a claim for

monetary reliefs pure and simple is a matter to be

adjudicated by the Registrar; on the other hand, if

incidental questions or matters relating to service, by

virtue of his past employment in the bank are involved,

such questions cannot be adjudicated by the Registrar

and in that event it will fall within the jurisdiction of the

Co-operative Arbitration Court. The Joint Registrar has

passed Ext. P13 order directing the society to pay the

amount as directed in Ext. P7 order. When Ext. P7 was W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 26

impugned before this Court by the society, the Court, by

Ext. P8 judgment, remitted the matter to the society to

decide and intimate the employee through an order as to

any amounts or benefits are still due to be paid to her;

and if the stand of the society thereafter is that no

amounts are due, then it will be upto the employee to

invoke appropriate remedies that are available to her in

law against such order. The society has accordingly

issued Ext. P9, wherein the stand of the society is that no

amounts are due to the employee. In the light of Ext.P9

issued by the society pursuant to Ext. P8 judgment, it

cannot be said that Ext. P7 has become conclusive. Thus,

there can be no doubt that, the remedy available to the

employee against Ext. P9 is to invoke Section 69 (2) (d)

of the Act.

27. Sri. Faizal, the learned Government Pleader W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 27

would submit that Ext. P13 order is passed by the Joint

Registrar under Section 66A of the Act. Ext. P13 order

does not recite or indicate that the same has been

issued exercising powers under Section 66A of the Act.

Therefore, the statement that Ext. P13 has been issued

under Section 66A cannot make the order as one issued

under the provisions of Section 66A of the Act. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Mohinder Singh Gill and

another v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi

and others [AIR 1978 SC 851], has held:-

"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out."

Section 66A of the Act, as modified by Act 7 of 2010,

stipulates that, subject to the provisions of the Act and W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 28

the Rules made thereunder, the Registrar may issue

general directions and guidelines to any or all of the Co-

operative societies in furtherance of the purposes of the

Act or for implementing government policies for the

benefit of the members and the general public. The

Section unequivocally stipulates that, the directions and

guidelines to be issued by the Registrar shall be for the

purpose of implementing the Government policies for the

benefit of the members and the general public and

subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Ext.

P13 order directing the society to pay full salary and

earned leave benefits to Smt. Nirmala Xavier cannot, by

any stretch of imagination, be stated to be for the

benefit of the members or the general public or in

furtherance of the purposes of the Act. A dispute arising

in connection with employment of officers and servants W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 29

of Co-operative societies has to decided by Co-operative

Arbitration Court under Section 69. The Registrar cannot

invoke Section 66A of the Act and issue directions in

respect of disputes arising in connection with

employment which call for adjudication by Co-operative

Arbitration Court. Section 66A will not clothe the

Registrar the authority to issue an order in the nature of

Ext. P13.

The upshot of the above discussions is that Ext. P13

order needs to be interfered with, as one passed without

jurisdiction. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of

the employee to challenge Ext.P9 order before the Co-

operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Act,

Ext.P13 order is set aside. If the employee takes

recourse to such remedy within one month from date of

receipt of the certified copy of the judgment, the same W.P.(C) 28907/2019 & 3997/2020 30

shall be entertained and considered by the Arbitration

Court on merits and a decision thereon shall be taken

within three months from the date on which the petition

is filed.

Writ petitions are disposed of with the above

directions. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28907/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SETTLEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 4.3.2002. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.2671/2009 DATED 12.6.2009.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1736/2009 DATED 6.8.2009 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /CONCURRENT AUDITOR DATED 17.1.2006.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12.11.2015.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.1.2014 TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.2017.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 35367/17 DATED 7.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDING ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 28.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P10                TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
                           FIRST    RESPONDENT   BEFORE    THE   THIRD
                           RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P11                TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE

THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED 24.8.2019.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 1.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 18.10.2019.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER BANK DATED 12.6.21.

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3997/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF GO(ORD) NO.552/2017/CO-OP DATED 19.10.2017 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 07.06.2019 IN WP(c) NO.35367 OF 2017.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 28.06.2019 ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.10.2019 ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. C.R.P(1) 4312/12 K.DIS DATED 18.10.2019 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R5(A) SETTLEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE BANK DATED 4.03.2002.

EXHIBIT R5(B) JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) 2671/2009 DATED 12.06.2009.

EXHIBIT R5(C) JUDGMENT IN W.A. 1736/2009 DATED 6.08.2009.

spc/