IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH OCTOBER 2010 / 5TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 1988 of 2009(J) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- R.MOHANDAS, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, COIRFED,ALAPPUZHA (VALIYAVEETTIL ALAPPAD, KARUNAGAPPALLY). BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIBVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. * ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED ADDL.R4: 'P.N.VRINDAVANAN, RESIDING AT PARUTHIYAZHATH HOUSE, NJARAKAL, VYPIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT' IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 30-6-2010 IN I.A.NO.8632/2010 ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED FOR R1 & R2 SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, K.S.F.E. LTD. FOR R1 & R2 SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR FOR ADDL.R4 SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ FOR ADDL.R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J ------------------------------ W.P.(C).NO.1988 OF 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Upper Division Clerk under the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent Coir Fed is an Apex society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Earlier, raising grievance regarding the denial of the DA at the rate applicable to Government Employees, in terms of Rule 189 (3) of Kerala Co-Operative Societies Rules, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.8668 of 2008. The said writ petition disposed of as per judgment dated 27-06-2008. Based on the direction, the petitioner filed ARC No.110/2008 before the Co-Operative Arbitration Court, by seeking for a declaration to the effect that the employees of the Coir Fed are entitled to Dearness Allowance at the rate applicable to Government Employees. Along with the said ARC the petitioner had also moved I.A.No.97/2008 for a direction to pay Dearness Allowance at the rates applicable to Government employees with effect from 01-01-2004. Ext.P2 is the order passed thereon. As per Ext.P2 order the Arbitration Court directed the Management W.P.(C).NO.1988 OF 2009 2 viz., the 1st and 2nd respondents, to pay Dearness Allowance forthwith at the rate applicable to Government Employees and the arrears from the period 01-01-2004, within 15 months. It is the inordinate delay in complying with the directions in Ext.P2 order that made the petitioner to file this writ petition. A statement has been filed in this writ petition by respondents 1 and 2. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition by respondents 1 and 2. According to them, the question of financial stringency was not at all considered in Exhibit P2. A scanning of the contentions raised in the counter affidavit would make it abundantly clear that the respondents did not bring out anything to compel this Court to reject the relies sought for by the petitioner. Admittedly, as per Ext.P2 order the Co-operative Arbitration Court, taking into account the provisions under Rule 189(3) of the Co-operative Societies Rules directed for payment of Dearness Allowance to the employees of Coir Fed every month at the rate applicable to Government Employees. The said order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court has not been varied in any other proceedings and, therefore, the respondents are W.P.(C).NO.1988 OF 2009 3 bound to implement the same. Subsequent to the filing of the counter affidavit, respondents 1 and 2 have filed a memo. Along with the same they have produced a copy of the Minutes dated 1.6.2010. It is relying on the same that the respondents contended that subsequent to Ext.P2 award an agreement was entered into between the Management and the trade unions and thereby, they have agreed to waive the amounts receivable under Exhibit P2. The petitioner and also the additional 4th respondent resisted the said contention. I am of the considered view that this Court cannot go into the said aspects as it is outside the scope of this writ petition. The question to be considered in this writ petition is only whether the petitioner is entitled to get the reliefs sought for, that is, whether a writ of mandamus can be issued for non-implementation of Ext.P2 order of the Co- operative Arbitration Court to pay the Dearness Allowance to the employees of the Coir Fed every month at the rate applicable to Government employees prescribed by Rule 189(3) of the Co- operative Societies Rules. In the light of the provisions under Section 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rule 72 of the Kerala Co-operative W.P.(C).NO.1988 OF 2009 4 Rules for implementation, rather, execution of the orders passed by the Arbitration Court, the petitioner has to take appropriate steps before the appropriate forum, in accordance with the provisions under Section 76 of the Act under Rule 72 of the Rules. When provisions for implementation of an order of the arbitration Court is specifically provided under the Kerala Co-operative societies Act and the rules thereunder I am of the considered view that writ petition need not be entertained for the aforesaid purpose. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to resort to the remedies available for implementation of Exhibit P2 in accordance with the Act and the Rules. Subject to the same this writ petition is disposed of. C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JUDGE. pm