Kerala High Court
The Janakeeya Co-Operative Urban ... vs Reeja.P on 12 November, 2024
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2024:KER:83629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024/21ST KARTHIKA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 28371 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
THE JANAKEEYA CO-OPERATIVE URBAN SOCIETY
LTD.NO.M.645,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
RESIDING AT PALLIKKARA HOUSE,
CHEMMAD P.0., KOTTAKKAL, PIN - 676503
BY ADV.SRI.P.P.JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 REEJA P.,
W/O SARAVANAKUMAR,
SARANAM, PANDAMANGALAM,
KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676503.
2 THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
NORTHERN ZONE, KOZHIKODE,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 673032
BY ADVS.
SRI.EBIN MATHEW
SRI.P.J.MATHEW(K/203/1985)
SMT.AKHILA SHOJI(K/000593/2017)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.08.2024, THE COURT ON 12.11.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2024:KER:83629
W.P.(C) No.28371/2023
:2:
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.28371 of 2023
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2024
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society.
The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the Award
passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court setting aside the
punishment of termination imposed on the 1st respondent.
2. The 1st respondent was working as
Secretary of the Society. The petitioner states that the 1 st
respondent committed serious irregularities and
misappropriation of funds. The Department enunciated
Section 65 enquiry. The enquiry report found that the 1 st
respondent is responsible for manipulation of documents.
Section 68 proceedings are pending. In the meanwhile,
2024:KER:83629
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the 1st
respondent. The 1st respondent was terminated from service
after a domestic enquiry.
3. The 1st respondent filed ARC No.3/2018
before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The 2 nd respondent
passed Ext.P2 Award holding that the Disciplinary Sub
Committee has no power to issue chargesheet. The
petitioner states that a Full Bench of this Court has
considered the issue and has held that Disciplinary Sub
Committee has the power to issue chargesheet. Therefore,
Ext.P2 is unsustainable. Ext.P2 Award is therefore liable to
be set aside.
4. The 1st respondent filed counter affidavit.
The 1st respondent submitted that the judgment of the Full
Bench has been taken up in appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. Therefore, based on the said Full Bench
judgment, the Award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court
cannot be unsettled. The writ petition is therefore liable to be
2024:KER:83629
dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
6. On the basis of a Section 65 inquiry, the 1 st
respondent was proceeded against and she was terminated
from service after a domestic enquiry. The 1st respondent
filed ARC No.3/2018 invoking Section 69 of the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act, 1969. The Co-operative Arbitration
Court, which considered ARC No.3/2018, held that the
Disciplinary Sub Committee has no power to issue
chargesheet against the 1st respondent. Consequently, the
order of termination was set aside as per Ext.P2 Award.
7. A Full Bench of this Court had considered
the issue and held that the Disciplinary Sub Committee has
the power to issue chargesheet. If that be so, Ext.P2 Award
passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court is not in
accordance with the Full Bench judgment of this Court.
2024:KER:83629
However, it is conceded that the judgment of the Full Bench
of this Court has been subjected to challenge and the matter
is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. In the case of the 1 st respondent, however,
the Ext.P2 Award dated 13.08.2021 has not been challenged
by the petitioner within a reasonable time. This writ petition
challenging Ext.P2 Award has been filed after a lapse of more
than two years. Furthermore, the pleadings would show that
the petitioner had accepted the Award and the petitioner had
issued fresh charge memo to continue with the domestic
enquiry afresh.
9. When there is an inter party Award passed
by a competent Tribunal which remains unchallenged, a
subsequent Full Bench judgment of this Court cannot be a
reason to unsettle the Award. The challenge made against
Ext.P2 Award after more than two years from the date of the
Award is highly belated and unsustainable. The writ petition
therefore fails.
2024:KER:83629
The writ petition is therefore dismissed
without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to continue with
the domestic enquiry proceedings as directed in Ext.P2
Award.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/08.11.2024
2024:KER:83629
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28371/2023
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SAID REPORT
DATED 30.5.2015 VIDE NO. 1217/15/M
Exhibit P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE AWARD IN A.R.C
3/2018 DATED 13.8.21
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
Exhibit R1(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER
ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF
INDIA IN SLP(CIVIL)DIARY NO 51560 OF
2023 DATED 03/01/2024.
