IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19312 of 2009(H)
1. M.K.HYDROSE,S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CHERANELLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OP CO-OPERATIVE
3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.BABY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.19312 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 17th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The subject matter of this writ petition relates to the
proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner way back in
1971.
2. Facts of the case are that in 1969, the petitioner was
appointed as a Salesman in the sales Depot run by the 1st
respondent. On the allegation of deficit of stock worth Rs.4807.51,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and
finally he was dismissed from service by order dated 27/03/1971.
To recover the loss, the Bank initiated ARC No.202/1971 against the
petitioner and his father, who had furnished a surety bond at the
time of his appointment. In the ARC, written statements dated
23/10/1971 were filed by the father and son, copies of which are
Exts.P2 & P3. Replication filed by the Bank is Ext.P4. The Arbitrator
passed an award dated 23/10/1982 decreeing Ext.P1.
3. The petitioner filed an appeal as Appeal No. 10/1983
WP(C) No.19312/2009
-2-
against the award before the 3rd respondent Tribunal, who by
judgment dated 29/12/1983 set aside the award and remanded the
matter for fresh consideration and with liberty to the parties to
adduce additional evidence.
4. On remand, the case was renumbered as ARC
No.1372/1988. On remand, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 additional
written statement, Ext.P6 list of witnesses, and Ext.P7 petition to
call upon the Society to produce additional documents. Ext.P9 reply
dated 22/03/1989 was filed by the Society, producing certain
documents and also informing that some of the documents sought
to be produced were not maintained by the Society, and some of the
the documents were not available at that point of time. The
petitioner states that oral evidence of three additional witnesses
were tendered and that Ext.P10 argument note was also submitted.
Finally, Ext.P11 award dated 12/04/2000 was passed by the
Arbitrator decreeing the claim and allowing the Society to realise
Rs.4,410.87 with interest at 12% from 31/03/1971 together with
costs.
5. The petitioner filed Ext.P12 appeal before the 3rd
WP(C) No.19312/2009
-3-
respondent Tribunal. In Ext.P12, two important contentions urged
were that the award was passed by an Officer, who did not hear the
petitioner. It was also contended that the oral and documentary
evidences, tendered after the remand of the ARC, were ignored by
the Arbitrator. The Tribunal by Ext.P14 judgment dated
27/04/2009, dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid background
challenging Ext.P11 award and Ext.P14 judgment, this writ petition
is filed.
6. It is contended that not only that the Arbitrator did not
examine the additional oral and documentary evidence produced
after the remand, but also that these documents were not even
available before the Tribunal while considering Ext.P12 appeal.
7. In my view, this contention of the learned counsel is
belied by the contents of Ext.P14 judgment itself, where in
Paragraph 11, the Tribunal had made extensive reference to the
additional documentary evidence produced before the Arbitrator
after the matter was remanded. The other plea that the award was
passed by an Officer, who did not hear the petitioner, in my view
does not survive at this distance of time, as the petitioner had a
WP(C) No.19312/2009
-4-
satisfactory hearing before the Tribunal, which has rendered
Ext.P14, a well reasoned judgment.
8. A reading of Ext.P14 judgment shows that the entire
evidence, oral and documentary, and all the contentions have been
appreciated by the Tribunal at the time when it had rendered the
judgment. In my view, this controversy, which started way back in
1971 should end at least at this distance of time. I see no good
reason to entertain the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg