IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 9154 of 2004(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ 1. M.V.JOSEPH, S/O.M.K.VARGHESE, MEKKESACHERIL, PUNCHAVAYAL P.O. MUNDKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. WORKER, PUNCHAVAYAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY NO.S.IND.K.167, K.T.M. 2. BABU P.U. S/O.ULAHANNAN, PATHALUPARAMBIL, PUNCHAVAYAL P.O, MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, WORKER, DO. DO. DO BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.RAJKUMAR SRI.SARASTH CHANDRAN SRI.T.S.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE PUNCHAVAYAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES, CO-OPERATIVE SOCEITIEY LTD. NO.S.IND.K.167(PRIAS) PUNCHAVAYAL P.O. MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PUNCHAVAYAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIEY LTD NO.S.IND.K. 167, PUNCHAVAYAL P.O. MUNDAKKAYAM, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, REV.FR. MATHEW VADAKKEMURY. ADV. SRI.H.B.SHENOY FOR R2&3 SRI.B.ASHOK SHENOY FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.9154/2004 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DT 7.12.2002 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 7.12.2002 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER DT 16.12.2002. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 16.12.2002 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD 31.12.2003 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DTD. 31.12.2003 ISSUED BY R2 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT.15.1.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 15.1.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER DTD 14.6.2003 RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR OF R2. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 14.6.2003 RECEIVED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FROM THE ADMINISTRATOR OF R2. EXT.P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2004 ISSUED BY R1 TO R2. EXT.P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.3.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P13: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 6.3.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE R1. EXT.P14: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.3.2004 ISSUED BY R1 TO R2. WPC NO.9154/04 -2- EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.2.2004 IN WP(C) NO.6474 OF 2004U OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL BODY MEETING OF MEMBERS OF 2ND RESPONDENT HELD ON 28.2.2004. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 19.3.2004 SENT BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMNET, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.HCC2/6578/04 DATED 7.4.2004 ISSUED BY COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 9154 OF 2004 (M) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were members of the 2nd respondent, an industrial co-operative society. Being members, they were also working in the small scale industry of the society. They were issued Exts.P1 and P2 memos containing certain allegations of misconducts against them, to which they submitted Exts.P3 and P4 explanations. They were also placed under suspension. It would appear that in the meanwhile there was a change in the committee and the new committee again issued Exts.P5 and P6 show cause notices. To these show cause notices also, Exts.P7 and P8 explanations were submitted. 2. While so, the 1st respondent issued Exts.P9 and P10 directing to reinstate the petitioners in service and Ext.P11, to keep further proceedings against them in abeyance. This was on account of the fact that in the meanwhile, an order was issued by the 1st respondent for the conduct of enquiry under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. It would appear that the petitioners were not reinstated and therefore they moved the 1st WPC 9154/04 :2 : respondent by filing Exts.P12 and P13. While so, the enquiry officer convened a general body meeting of the society on 28/2/2004 and the general body passed Ext.R2(b) resolution resolving to expel the petitioners from the membership of the society. However, without taking note of this resolution, the 1st respondent again issued Ext.P14 dated 9/3/2004, ordering reinstatement of the petitioners, pending receipt of the enquiry report. The petitioners contended that in view of Exts.P9, P10, P11 and P14, they are entitled to be reinstated in service and it is with that prayer the writ petition is filed. 3. However, as already noticed, exercising the rights conferred on the general body in terms of the provisions contained in the bylaws, in the meeting held on 28/2/2004, general body of the society passed Ext.R2(b) resolution in the presence of the enquiry officer resolving to expel the petitioners from the membership of the society. This resolution has not been challenged either under Rule 176 or by invoking the arbitration proceedings as provided under the Act. 4. If that be so, the above resolution has become final and so long as the resolution remains as such, petitioners are not WPC 9154/04 :3 : members of the society and if so, they are also ineligible to be reinstated in the service of the society. Consequently, the relief sought for directing their reinstatement in service also cannot be granted. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp