IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25723 of 2009(I)
1. THE TURYR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.M.ABDUL KHADER, MAMBRAVAMBETH HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.G.ARUN
For Respondent :SRI.R.SUDHISH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :16/10/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J
...............................................
W.P(C) No. 25723 of 2009
.................................................
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank. The 1st respondent was
the former Secretary of the Bank. He was dismissed from service
on charges involving loss to the Bank, proved in an enquiry
conducted for that purpose. The 1st respondent filed ARC No.
106/2008 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court challenging the
disciplinary proceedings. In that ARC, the 1st respondent filed I.A.
No. 162/2008 seeking a direction to the petitioner Bank to pay the
1st respondent gratuity due to him. That was allowed by Ext.P6.
Ext.P6 order is under challenge before me.
2. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner as also counsel
appearing for the 1st respondent.
3. Admittedly, the 1st respondent has been dismissed from
service. According to the petitioner, dismissal was for misconducts
involving loss to the society. They contend that since he has been
dismissed from service for causing loss to the society, the society is
entitled to forfeit the gratuity due to the 1st respondent. That being
so, without first deciding the question as to whether the 1st
W.P(C) No. 25723 of 2009 -2-
respondent is guilty of the alleged misconducts or not, the
Arbitration Court could not have decided the question of payment
of gratuity to the 1st respondent, since the Payment of Gratuity Act
permits an employer to forfeit gratuity due to an employee
dismissed from service on misconducts causing loss to the
employer. Even otherwise, for claiming gratuity, the remedy of the
1st respondent was to file an application under the Payment of
Gratuity Act before the authority prescribed under that Act. In the
above circumstances, I am satisfied that Ext.P6 order has been
wrongly passed. Accordingly, Ext.P6 order is quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent makes a fervent
plea to direct the 2nd respondent to complete the proceedings in
the ARC expeditiously.
5. Having heard both sides, I direct the 2nd respondent to
complete the proceedings in ARC No. 106 of 2008, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs