IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 W.P(C).No. 27031 of 2008(R) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------ 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, (COIRFED) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD, (COIRFED) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW RESPONDENTS: ------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. R.MOHANDAS, U.D.CLERK COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA, GENERAL SECRETARY, KERALA STATE COIRFED EMPLOYEES'CONGRESS (INTUC) ALAPPUZHA. BY SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER-R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.27031 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Learned Government Pleader appears for the first respondent. Notice to the second respondent is dispensed with, having regard to the nature of the order being issued hereunder, preserving his right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Coirfed, in challenge to the impugned interlocutory order, argued that the same has been passed ex parte and it has a huge consequence which is beyond the jurisdiction of proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. It is pithily contended that Ext.P4 would show that it is a litigation initiated in a representative nature on behalf of the employees and such litigation is not contemplated by Section 69, which authorises only resolution of disputes which are essentially based on individual contentions and individual claims. This is a gray area WPC.27031/08 Page numbers which may require to be considered. Not only that, it is further pointed out that the financial implication that such an order would have, on the present financial scenario in Coirfed and other relevant materials which should have been considered while issuing an interlocutory order, were not even available before the arbitration since the impugned order has been issued without any prior notice to Coirfed. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is relegated to the arbitrator to raise contentions and seek cancellation or modification of the impugned order. If such an application is filed within a period of two weeks from now, the arbitrator will consider the same as expeditiously as possible and if for any reason it gets adjourned beyond September, it shall be ensured that the impugned order need not be complied with until final decision is taken by the arbitrator on the question of interim relief. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.