V.C.Jose vs Kattappana Marketing Society … on 28 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 7597 of 2010(Y)


1. V.C.JOSE, S/O.CHUMMAR, AGED 62 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KATTAPPANA MARKETING SOCIETY LTD.NO.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.C.DEVASIA

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.G.ARUN

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

 Dated :28/01/2011

 O R D E R
                        P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
                     -------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.7957 of 2010
                     -------------------------------
            Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011

                            J U D G M E N T

Ext.P3 enquiry report finding the petitioner guilty of the

charges levelled against him and Ext.P8 order passed by the Managing

Committee of the first respondent society rejecting the appeal filed by

the petitioner from the order imposing the punishment of dismissal

from service are under challenge in this writ petition. The main

contention raised by the petitioner is that he attained the age of

superannuation on 28.2.2006 and it was thereafter that the enquiry

report was received and the order dismissing him from service was

passed and therefore the order imposing punishment is liable to be

set aside.

2. The petitioner is an employee of a Co-operative

society. Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act,

1969, as amended with effect from 2.1.2003, states that any dispute

arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the

different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of section 80

is a dispute which can be decided by the Co-operative Arbitration

Court . From the decision of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, an

appeal lies to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. In such

W.P.(C) No.7597 of 2010

2

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should invoke

the alternate remedy available to him instead of seeking the

intervention of this Court at this stage. Apart from the question

whether a writ will lie against a co-operative society, there is also the

fact that the petitioner has an equally efficacious alternative

remedy. I therefore decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition

leaving open the petitioner’s contentions and reserving liberty with

him to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking redressal of

his grievances.

P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.

nj.