IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18837 of 2009(Y)
1. THE ANICADU REGIONAL FARMER'S SERVICE
... Petitioner
2. THE PRESIDENT, ANICADU REGIONAL FARMER'S
Vs
1. K.D.DEVASIA, KORAKUNNEL HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/07/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 18837 OF 2009 (Y)
=====================
Dated this the 6th day of July, 2009
J U D G M E N T
First petitioner is a Co-operative Bank and the second
petitioner is its President.
2. It is alleged that the first respondent, a member of the
1st petitioner Bank filed Ext.P1 before the 2nd respondent, which
was numbered as ARC 65/07 challenging certain appointments
made by the first petitioner. According to the petitioner, they had
filed Ext.P2 objection justifying the appointments. It is stated that
on 10/6/2009, though the matter was posted before the
Arbitrator, the case was not called, but however, later on
petitioners came to know that an award has been passed on
10/6/2009, disposing of ARC itself allowing the same. Coming to
know of the above, as by virtue of the award, the appointments
made by the petitioner were invalidated, it filed Ext.P3 application
requesting the 2nd respondent to suspend the operation of the
award and another application was made for issuing copy of the
award in order to pursue the matter before the Tribunal.
3. Petitioners complaint is that order on Ext.P3 has not
WPC 18837/09
:2 :
been passed so far and copy of the award also has not been
issued. Petitioner submits that this stalemate is creating several
administrative difficulties to the Bank in as much as the persons
whose appointments have been interfered with are continuing
and their salaries will also have to be paid.
4. If as stated by the petitioners, award has been
rendered by the Arbitrator on 10/6/09, petitioners are entitled to
pursue their remedies against the said award. Therefore, it is
essential that copy should be issued to them pursuant to the
applications made by them. Now that there is delay caused in
issuing copies, it is only appropriate that the 2nd respondent
should consider Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioner for
keeping in abeyance the operation of the said awards.
5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions.
(1) That within 4 weeks from today, the 2nd respondent
shall consider Ext.P3 application filed by the petitioners with
notice to the 1st respondent and orders thereon shall be passed.
(2) It is directed that in the meanwhile, further
WPC 18837/09
:3 :
proceedings pursuant to the award passed on 10/6/2009 in ARC
65/07 shall be kept in abeyance.
(3) Petitioners shall immediately produce a copy of this
judgment before the 2nd respondent along with a copy of this writ
petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp