Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Co Operative Departmental ... vs Jeffin Thomas
2022 Latest Caselaw 10352 Ker

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 10352 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 October, 2022

Kerala High Court
Co Operative Departmental ... vs Jeffin Thomas on 7 October, 2022
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
                                     &
                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
          Friday, the 7th day of October 2022 / 15th Aswina, 1944
                    IA.NO.1/2022 IN WA NO. 2012 OF 2018

  AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.07.2018 IN WP(C) 42030/2017 OF THIS COURT

PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

     1.CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.
     K.294, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTAYAM -
     686 001.
     2.THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES' CO-
     OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. K.294, REP. BY PRESIDENT, RAILWAY STATION
     ROAD, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

     1.JEFFIN THOMAS, PEON, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES
     COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.294, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, KOTTAYAM -
     686 001.
     2,THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
     (GENERAL),KOTTAYAM-686001.
     3.MANMADAN NAIR S.,SENIOR CO-OPERATIVE INSPECTOR,OFFICE OF THE JOINT
     REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, & PRESIDENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
     DEPARTMENTAL EMPLOYEES' CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.294,RAILWAY
     STATION ROAD,KOTTAYAM-686 001.

            Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to clarify that the
Division Bench judgment will not stand in the way of the appellants for
taking a decision in the nature of Annexure A2, and if any person
aggrieved by Annexure A2, he can take up the matter before the appropriate
forum under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, in the interest
of justice.

             This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this court's
judgment dated 12/10/2018 in WA No.2012/2018 and upon hearing the
arguments of SRI.P.C. SASIDHARAN, Advocate for the petitioners, the court
passed the following:


                                                                    P.T.O.
 ANNEXURE A2:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/11/2018

ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.



                             ---
       A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & SATHISH NINAN, JJ.
      -----------------------------------------
                         I.A.No.1 of 2022
                                 in
                      WA. No.2012 of 2018
      -----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 7th day of October, 2022

                               ORDER

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

This is an I.A seeking a clarification of the judgment dated

18.07.2018 of the Division Bench to the extent it grants the liberty to the

society as an employer to set right its administration or to take action

against the erring employees. It is the submission of Sri.P.C.Sasidharan,

the learned counsel for the petitioners in the I.A that the consequential

action taken by the society, which was the subject matter of challenge in

another Writ Petition (WP(C).No.3627 of 2019) fell within the purview of

the liberty granted to the society by the judgment of the Division Bench

aforementioned. It is his submission that during the course of the

hearing of the Writ Petition before a learned Single Judge, the learned

Judge expressed a doubt as regards whether or not the action taken by

the society would come within the scope of the liberty granted by the

judgment of the Division Bench aforementioned. It is on account of the

said doubts expressed by the learned Single Judge that he has chosen to

seek a clarification from this Court with regard to the scope of the

directions given in the earlier judgment of the Division Bench.

I.A.No.1 of 2022 in WA. No.2012 of 2018

On a consideration of the matter, we find that the apprehension

of the learned counsel is only with regard to the acceptance of his

submission regarding the scope of the liberty reserved by this Court in

the earlier judgment while justifying the action that was impugned in

the Writ Petition pending before the learned Single Judge. We are of

the view that in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition before the

learned Single Judge it would not be appropriate or necessary for us to

clarify the scope and ambit of the directions of the earlier Division

Bench. We are of the view that the petitioners herein must await the

judgment of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition before

exploring further legal options. The I.A is therefore closed as above.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE

mns

07-10-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter