IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 21720 of 2009(H)
1. SMT.P.L.SARADHAMMA, W/O. RAJAN, AGED 47,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
... Respondent
2. KOSADY SCHEDULED TRIBE SERVICE CO-OP.
3. THE PRESIDENT,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :22/09/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.21720 Of 2009
-----------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein was the Secretary of the 2nd
respondent-Society, who was subjected to disciplinary action by
the Society. Second respondent is a Society representing
Schedule Tribe Members classified as Class VI by the
Co-operative Department. The petitioner alone was the
employee in the Society who was in service for a long period of
18 years. She was placed under suspension by order dated
3.7.2008. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Department
seeking for payment of salary, wherein by Exhibit P3, the
Society was directed to take steps to disburse the arrears without
further delay. Seeking for implementation of the direction, this
Writ Petition has been filed.
2. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It
is pointed out that the petitioner was not drawing Rs.4,701/- as
claimed in the Writ Petition and the net salary was Rs.3,566/-
and the take home salary was only Rs.3,417/-, after deductions.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has drawn various
W.P.(C)No.21720/09 -2-
amounts as salary during these years and Exhibits R2(c) to R2(k)
are relied upon in support of the above plea.
3. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit disputing the
averments in the counter affidavit.
4. Evidently, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled
for payment of the entire salary as claimed and whether there
was any default on the part of the Society to disburse the salary
is a question of fact. Herein, the petitioner has sought for a
direction to the Society to disburse the salary. The total amount
as such is not shown in the relief portion. It is not quantified in
Exhibit P3 also. The learned counsel for the Society submitted
that already A.R.C.No.846/09 filed by the petitioner is pending
before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies(General),
Kanjirappally wherein she has sought for release of an amount of
Rs.1,55,851/- kept by her in her savings bank account with the
Society.
5. Essentially, the claim raised by the petitioner is a claim
for payment of money. Since the Society deny their liability, this
Court will not be able to grant any relief to the petitioner in the
absence of an adjudication by a proper authority concerned.
W.P.(C)No.21720/09 -3-
Going by the averments in the Writ Petition as well as in the
counter affidavit, it requires elaborate evidence to be adduced by
both parties before a competent authority.
6. The petitioner has got an effective and alternate
remedy under the Co-operative Societies Act to seek an
arbitration of the dispute. Evidently, any dispute regarding
payment of salary will be within the term of “dispute” as provided
in the Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore the petitioner can
raise a dispute under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act before the appropriate authority.
In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of
permitting the petitioner to approach the concerned Officer of the
Department, namely, the Officer authorised to deal with disputes
under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act for
adjudication of the dispute with regard to non-payment of salary.
No costs.
SD/- (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
dsn
True copy
P.A. to Judge