The Board Of Director Of Kalppana vs The Director Of Dairy Development on 25 August, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 12929 of 2009(I)


1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR OF KALPPANA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY

3. K. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, CHAKKOOR,

4. KALPANA MILK PRODUCES CO-OPERATIVE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/08/2009

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                      ================
                  W.P.(C) NO. 12929 OF 2009 (I)
                 =====================

            Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

Heard both sides.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P5, a

notice issued by the 1st respondent proposing action against the

petitioner under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies

Act. It is stated that the 3rd respondent was the Secretary of the

4th respondent Society. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated

against him and finally his services were terminated. He raised a

dispute, in which an award was passed directing his

reinstatement with backwages. Aggrieved by the said award, the

4th respondent filed RP No.119/08 before the Kerala Co-operative

Arbitration Tribunal along with IA No.238/08 seeking stay of the

award. It is stated that while orders on the interlocutory

application were awaited, Ext.P5 notice was issued by the 1st

respondent directing the Society to reinstate the 3rd respondent

and informing that on their failure, proceedings under Section 32

will be initiated. It was thereupon that this writ petition was filed.

3. Now, it is reported by the counsel for the petitioner

WPC 12929/09
:2 :

that the revision itself has been heard by the Tribunal and the

matter now stands posted to 28/8/2009 for final disposal.

4. In view of the aforesaid development, I think, without

getting into the merits of the controversies raised by the

petitioner, the writ petition can be disposed of directing that

further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 be deferred in the

meanwhile.

5. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition with the

following direction.

That further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 shall be

deferred, until the Tribunal pronounces its judgment in RP

No.119/08 filed by the 4th respondent against the award in ARC

No.83/04.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp