High Court Kerala High Court

Suresh Babu.G. vs The Mithrummala Service … on 6 January, 2011

Kerala High Court
Suresh Babu.G. vs The Mithrummala Service … on 6 January, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 393 of 2011(Y)


1. SURESH BABU.G., SHIJU NIVAS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MITHRUMMALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE

3. K.G.SREEKALA, KAMALAVILASAM,

4. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,

5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :06/01/2011

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                          ---------------------------
                      W.P.(C) No. 393 OF 2011
                          --------------------------
              Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a member of the first respondent bank. He

has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and Ext.P4 awards

passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court allowing the appeal

filed by the third respondent, a former Accountant of the first

respondent bank and directing her reinstatement in service. Under

section 82 (1)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, an

appeal lies from awards passed by the Co-operative Arbitration

Court under sub section (1) of section 70 of the Act to the Kerala

Co-operative Tribunal. The period of limitation prescribed for filing

such an appeal is 60 days from the date of the decision or award.

Sub section (1) of section 82 states that any person aggrieved by

the award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court may within 60 days

from the date of such decision or award, as the case may be,

appeal to the Tribunal. The petitioner thus has a meaningful and

alternate remedy by way of appeal. Since the petitioner was not a

party to the arbitration cases he will have to apply for the leave of

the Tribunal to prefer an appeal. That by itself is not a reason to

WPC No.393/2011 2

hold that the remedy by way of appeal is not a meaningful remedy. I

therefore finds no grounds to entertain this writ petition.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without

prejudice to the right of the petitioner to canvass the correctness of

Ext.P3 and P4 awards in other appropriate proceedings.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
(JUDGE)
vps

WPC No.393/2011 3

WPC No.393/2011 4