[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
N.Salim vs The State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:27266
WA NO. 763 OF 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 763 OF 2026
JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2026 IN WP(C) NO.4829 OF 2023 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
N.SALIM
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. P.NARAYANAN, RESIDING AT PAWATHU HOUSE, THOTTAMON,
RANNI P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689672
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.MADHU
SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
SHRI.RENJISH S. MENON
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT
OF CO OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE CALICUT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES CO-
OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.F-953
CORPORATION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY., PIN - 673032
2026:KER:27266
WA NO. 763 OF 2026 2
3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
4 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL)
SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA P.O., KOZHIKODE,
PIN - 673004
5 THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.B.NO.85, KALA NIVAS,
T.C.NO.27/156, 157, CHINMAYA LANE, KUNNUMPURAM, NEAR
AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
SRI.P.P JACOB, FOR R2
SRI.M.SASINDRAN, FOR R5
SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2026,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:27266
WA NO. 763 OF 2026 3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J
The appellant is in appeal against the judgment of the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4829 of 2023.
2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the appellant was working as a
Manager of the 2nd respondent - Society, when he retired, on attaining the
age of superannuation on 31.03.2016.
3. On the allegation that he was not paid his retirement benefits,
he approached this Court through W.P.(C) No.6997 of 2017 and obtained
Ext.P3 judgment, whereby, the Society was directed to pay his retirement
benefits within a period of four months; and in the meanwhile, liberty was
reserved to them to approach the Competent Statutory Arbitrator. It was
also clarified in the said judgment that, if the Society is to obtain any
interdictory orders from the learned Arbitrator, then the payment will
stand modulated on such.
4. It is admitted that the Society approached the learned
Arbitrator and obtained Ext.P4 Award, as early as on 04.12.2019.
5. The appellant alleges that Ext.P4 is not an Award at all, since
it did not adjudicate any amount found due from him to the Society; and
hence that he was constrained to approach this Court.
2026:KER:27266
6. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ
petition primarily for the reason that the appellant challenged Ext.P4 after
a substantial period of time, nearly four years.
7. The appellant argues that he was incapacitated from
approaching this Court immediately after Ext.P4, on account of the Covid-
19 pandemic disruption; and further because of certain extenuating
factors he was suffering.
8. Be that as it may, when we examine Ext.P4, it is evident, as
correctly argued by Sri.T.Madhu - learned counsel for the appellant, that
it does not adjudicate any liability against the appellant, except saying that
he is responsible for amounts due to Society in his capacity as the
Manager. This document is conspicuously silent as to how it declares that
the appellant is liable for the alleged loss to the Society; and if so, what is
the amount that is due from him. Instead of doing so, the Award literally
asked the parties to sit together in the presence of an expert and then
determine the amounts due to the Society.
9. We cannot understand in what manner the Arbitrator has
dealt with his jurisdiction because, as evident from Ext.P4, what was
necessary for him was to have determined whether there is any amount in
loss to the Society on account of the actions of the appellant; and even if
2026:KER:27266
so, was he responsible for the same on account of his contention that he
worked only in a supervisory cadre.
10. Since Ext.P4 does not deal with any of such aspects, but
proceeds to assume certain factual scenario, we are afraid that it cannot
find favour in law.
11. As far as the delay of the appellant in approaching this Court
is concerned, there, prima facie, appears to be a four year period in doing
so. As indicated above, the appellant explains it by saying that he was
incapacitated on account of the Covid - 19 scenario and certain personal
reasons.
12. When Ext.P4 comes out to be one that does not satisfy the
requirements of an Award under the statutory scheme and when we
cannot approve it in any manner for the reasons said above, the question
of delay ought not to have been weighed with the learned Single Judge, to
dismiss the writ petition. There is no doubt that, in normal cases,
litigations have to be initiated within reasonable periods, but in this case,
we find that the appellant is entitled to some lentitude on account of the
factors recorded above, especially the intervening pandemic disruption.
13. In the above circumstances, we allow this appeal and set
aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge, as also Ext P4 Award of
2026:KER:27266
the Arbitrator; with a consequential direction to the said Authority to
reconsider the matter, after affording necessary opportunity to both sides,
adverting to our observations above; thus culminating in an appropriate
order, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
We clarify that we have not entered into the merits of the other
contentions of the parties and that they all are left open.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
Sru
