High Court Kerala High Court

N.Karunakaran Nadar vs The Assistant Registrar … on 28 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
N.Karunakaran Nadar vs The Assistant Registrar … on 28 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2754 of 2009(C)


1. N.KARUNAKARAN NADAR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT,

3. THE ARUVIKKARA FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE

4. THE JOINT REGISTRAR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :28/01/2009

 O R D E R
                THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, J
                    ...........................................
                   WP(C).NO. 2754 OF 2009
                   ............................................
      DATED THIS THE           28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2009

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, while employed as a servant of the third

respondent, was dismissed from service following disciplinary

proceedings. Against that he filed an appeal to the committee of

the society and that appeal was also rejected. He filed an

arbitration case. ARC 37 of 2000 was decided on 30.3.2001

holding against the plea of the petitioner. Parallel to the

arbitration proceedings, petitioner also filed writ petition before

this court. However, that writ petition was disposed of on

17.11.2000, that is, before the arbitration award directing the

committee of the society to consider the appeal of the petitioner.

That decision in the appeal has also merged in the award of the

Arbitrator(Ext.P3). After issuance of Ext.P3 in March 2001, the

petitioner got yet another order against him in the form of

Ext.P9, whereby the Joint Registrar refused to interfere with the

decision of the management. With the passage of time, after 5 to

6 years, all those decisions have become final, the petitioner not

having carried the award in a statutory revision or appeal before

the Tribunal. Obviously, if at all petitioner would have any

WP(C) 2754/2009 2

remedy, it is only to move the Tribunal, if it has power to do so to

consider any application to condone the delay.

Writ petition is dismissed.

THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE

lgk