IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2011 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29357 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- AUGUSTINE T.A., AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.AUGUSTHY, THEKKUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, AANDOOR, MARANGATTUPILLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOBI JOSE KONDODY RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 2. GANDHIGRAM AGROBASED INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.(GAICO), KURUVILANGADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, GANDHIGRAM AGROBASED INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.(GAICO), KURUVILANGADU P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 633. 4. SEBASTIAN P.J., POOVATHINAL HOUSE, KURIYANAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 001. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC,SC,GANDHIGRAM AGRO-BAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.29357/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P1 : A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD.15.7.92 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS A CLERK WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. EXT.P2 : A TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE RULES OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT APPROVED BY THE MANAGING COMMITTEE ALONG WITH THE QUALIFICATION FIXED FOR VARIOUS POSTS IN THE SECOND RESPONDENT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. EXT.P3 : A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST OF THE EMPLOYEES WORKING WITH THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.19.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.28.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.29357 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is an employee of the second respondent co-operative society, has filed this writ petition mainly seeking a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation in accordance with law and in the light of Ext.P2 feeder category sub rules. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the third respondent, the Secretary of the second respondent society, to strictly implement Ext.P2 sub rules in the matter of promotion of employees. 2. The grievance set out by the petitioner in this writ petition and in Ext.P5 arises out of Ext.P4 order dated 19.10.2011 issued by the third respondent pursuant to the decision taken by the managing committee of the second respondent society on 17.10.2011 to give charge of the post of Manager in the super market to the 4th respondent with effect from 1.12.2011 and making consequential arrangements. From the pleadings and the W.P(C).No.29357 of 2011 -:2:- materials on record it is evident that the dispute raised by the petitioner in Ext.P5 and in this writ petition relates to the petitioner's claim for appointment by promotion to the post of Manager. Such a dispute cannot, in my opinion, be adjudicated by the first respondent or any other officer of the department in view of the stipulations contained in sub-section (2) of section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Interpreting the said provision a Division Bench of this Court has in Raveendran v. State of Kerala, 2007 (3) KLT 558 held that any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of different classes of societies including their promotion and seniority can be decided only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The first respondent cannot therefore entertain Ext.P5 and pass orders thereon for want of jurisdiction. That apart, section 70 empowers the Co-operative Arbitration Court to pass interim orders pending disposal of the main dispute. The petitioner has thus an effective and meaningful remedy before the Co-operative Arbitration Court for redressal of his grievances. I therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. It W.P(C).No.29357 of 2011 -:3:- is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking redressal of his grievances. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.29357 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 3rd November, 2011