Kerala High Court
Manjumol P.T vs The President Nattakom Service ... on 23 October, 2024
Author: Anil K. Narendran
Bench: Anil K. Narendran
1
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/1ST KARTHIKA, 1946
RP NO. 265 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2017 IN OP(LC) NO.4122 OF
2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
MANJUMOL P.T
AGED 40 YEARS
W/O. ANIL BOSE, SOUGANDHIKA HOUSE,
KUZHIMATTOM P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 533.
BY ADV SRI.C.S.MANU
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS & 2ND RESPONDENT:
1 THE PRESIDENT
NATTAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED
NO.3839, PAKKIL P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 012.
2 THE SECRETARY
NATTAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3839,
PAKKIL P.O KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686 012.
3 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
IDUKKI, PEERMEDU, IDUKKI, PIN - 685 531.
ADV.SRI. T.A SHAJI, DGP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.10.2024, ALONG WITH RP.266/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2024/1ST KARTHIKA, 1946
RP NO. 266 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.03.2017 IN OP(LC) NO.4111 OF
2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER:
MANJUMOL P.T.
AGED 40 YEARS, W/O. ANIL BOSE,
SOUGANDHIKA HOUSE, KUZHIMATTOM P.O,
KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 533.
BY ADV SRI.C.S.MANU
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE PRESIDENT
NATTAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3839
PAKKIL P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 012
2 THE SECRETARY
NATTAKOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3839,
PAKKIL P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN 686 012
3 THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL
IDUKKI, PEERMEDUIDUKKI.
ADV.SRI. T.A SHAJI, DGP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23.10.2024, ALONG WITH RP.265/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
ORDER
The petitioner in R.P.No.265 of 2018 is the 1st respondent
in O.P(LC)No.4122 of 2013 and the petitioner in R.P.No.266 of
2018 is the petitioner in O.P(LC)No.4111 of 2013, which arose
out of an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.39 of
2012. The said I.D. arises out of an order of reference made by
the State Government vide G.O.(Rt.)No.813/2012/LBR dated
30.05.2012 and the issue referred for adjudication was as to
whether the denial of employment to Smt.Manjumol P.T
[petitioner in the O.P(LC)No.4111 of 2023], who was working as
a Peon in Nattakom Service Co-operative Bank Limited is
justifiable. The issues referred for adjudication are as follows;
"1. Whether the denial of employment to Smt.Manjumol
P.T., Peon, Nattakom Service Co-operative Society Bank
Ltd. No.3839, Pakkil P.O., Kottayam by the management is
justifiable?
2. If not, what relief the workman is entitled to?"
2. After considering the rival contentions, the Industrial
Tribunal passed an award dated 01.08.2013 in I.D.No.39 of
2012. The operative portion of the said award reads thus;
"........................ Therefore, an award is passed holding as
follows.
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
(1) The denial of employment to the workman by the
management is unjustifiable and arbitrary.
(2) The workman is not entitled for reinstatement.
Instead she is entitled to get lump sum compensation of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) from the
management.
(3) The workman is not entitled for any back wages or
any attendant benefits.
(4) The management shall pay the compensation to the
workman within 1 month from the date of
publication/pronouncement of this award. Failing which the
management shall pay an interest @ 8% per annum for
the above amount till the date of payment.
The reference is answered accordingly."
3. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the
Industrial Tribunal to the extent of holding that the workman is
not entitled for reinstatement, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing O.P(LC)No.4111 of 2013. Challenging the award
passed by the Industrial Tribunal to the extent of directing
payment of a lumpsum compensation of Rs.75,000/-, the
Management approached this Court by filing O.P(LC)No.4122 of
2013.
4. During the pendency of these Original Petitions, a
Larger Bench of this Court in Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-
operative Bank Ltd. v. Santhosh [2015 (4) KLT 163] held in
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
the context of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies
Act, 1969 and the provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 that Section 69(1) of the Co-operative Societies Act does
not admit any exception regarding jurisdiction of the forum
provided under Section 69 of the said Act. Para.35 of the said
judgment reads thus;
'35. There is one more indication in Section 69(1) of the
1969 Act itself, which clearly indicates that the State
Legislation intended that settlement of any dispute as
referred to under Section 69(1) read with Section 2(i) shall
not be taken by any other Court. The last portion of
Section 69(1) reads that "such dispute shall be referred to
the Registrar for decision and no Court shall have
jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in
respect of such dispute". The Legislature intended that no
court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other
proceedings. As noted above, Section 100 of the Act,
which provides for the bar of jurisdiction of courts reads,
"no civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in
respect of any matter for which provision is made in the
Act", but, while enacting the provision of Section 69(1),
the Legislature used the phrase 'no Court'. There is a clear
intendment of excluding the jurisdiction of all Courts. The
statutory scheme does not thus indicate that the
jurisdiction of the Labour Court under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 to take cognizance of dispute falling
within the Industrial Disputes Act regarding employees or
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
workmen in the Co-operative Society, was exempted from
such exclusion. Section 69(1) does not admit any
exception regarding jurisdiction of the forum provided
under Section 69. As noted above the exception provided
for in the 1932 Act and 1951 Act in the words "other than
a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the society
or its committee against a paid servant of the society" was
withdrawn and not continued in the settlement of Dispute
as delineated by Section 69 of the Act. As noted above, the
Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 contains the provision for
settlement of disputes including right of appeal, revision
and the procedure. Detailed provisions have also been laid
down in the 1969 Rules. Some powers of the Civil Court
while deciding a dispute under Section 70 has also been
specifically given. The 1969 Act and the Rules provided for
a complete mechanism for settlement of disputes. Hence,
the Legislature intended to exclude the jurisdiction of all
Courts in the context of settlement of disputes. The
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 having provided for
settlement of disputes of workmen, the Forum so provided
under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is clearly
inconsistent with the forum provided for under Section 69
of the 1969 Act. The provisions of the 1969 Act as noted
above clearly indicate that the object and purpose of the
provision was to exclude and override any other Forum for
settlement of disputes including the Forum of Labour Court
as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As
noted above, the 1969 Act having been enacted with the
Presidential assent, the Act clearly intended to do away
with the forum provided under the Industrial Disputes Act,
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
1947. The provisions of Section 69 are clear and
unambiguous and full effect has to be given to the plain
and ordinary meaning of the words used therein."
5. In view of the law laid down by the Larger Bench in
the decision referred to supra, this Court, by a common
judgment dated 27.03.2017, disposed of all those original
petitions, by setting aside the award dated 01.08.2013 of the
Industrial Tribunal, Idukki in I.D.No.39 of 2012 [Ext.P6 in
O.P.(L.C)No.4111 of 2013 and Ext.P3 in O.P.(L.C)No.4122 of
2013) and giving liberty to the workman, namely, the petitioner
in O.P.(L.C)No.4111 of 2013 to approach the competent
authority under Section 69(1) of the Act, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the
judgment.
6. In the said judgment, this Court found that, in view of
the law laid down by the Larger Bench of this Court in the
decision referred to supra, the reference made to the Industrial
Tribunal, vide Government order 30.05.2012, is not legally
maintainable and the only remedy open to the workman,
namely, the petitioner in O.P.(L.C)No.4111 of 2013 is to make a
reference of the dispute in terms of Section 69(1) of the Kerala
Co-operative Societies Act.
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
7. Seeking review of the judgment dated 27.03.2017,
the petitioner is before this Court in these review petitions,
invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908.
8. In the review petitions, the petitioner would place
reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamma K.A v.
Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Limited
[(2018) 2 SCC 729] - the judgment dated 12.01.2018 in Civil
Appeal No.97 of 2018, whereby the judgment of the Larger
Bench decision of this Court in Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-
operative Bank Ltd. [2015 (4) KLT 163] was overruled, by
holding that the competent authorities under the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act and that the Industrial Disputes Act both
possess and enjoy concurrent jurisdiction to decide any service
dispute arising between an employee of Co-operative Society
and his/her employer, i.e., the Co-operative Society.
9. These review petitions were filed along with
C.M.Applications for condonation of delay of 326 days, which
were condoned by the order dated 27.09.2024.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
the learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
11. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents 1 and 2
would point out the order of the Apex Court in SLP(C)No.245 of
2018, which was one filed by the petitioner herein challenging
the judgment dated 27.03.2017, which is sought to be reviewed
in these review petitions. On 05.01.2018, when that SLP along
with the connected matter, i.e., No.SLP(C)No.30959 of 2017
against the judgment dated 27.03.2017 in O.P(LC)No.4113 of
2013 came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the
petitioners sought permission to withdraw those Special Leave
Petitions, with liberty to approach the competent authority. By
the order dated 05.01.2018, the Apex Court granted permission
and accordingly the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy before the
appropriate forum, within a period of three months from the date
of that order.
12. In Government of NCT, Delhi v. K.L.Rathi Steels
Limited [2024 SCC OnLine SC 1090] a Three-Judge Bench
reiterated that the fact that the view taken on a question of law
in the judgment of a court has been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior court in another case, is not a
ground for review of the judgment.
R.P. Nos.265 & 266 of 2018
2024:KER:79824
13. In such circumstances, this Court finds no reason to
entertain these review petitions, on the grounds raised therein.
In the result, these review petitions fail and they are
accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
bkn/-
