IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 27TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 7625 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.MOHANAN,S/O.KRISHNAN,PANNIYODAN HOUSE, MEETHALAPUNNAD,PUNNAD P.O.KANNUR DISTRICT. UNSKILLED WORKER RAIDCO,KANNUR BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD.,(RAIDCO)KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. K.V.VENU,UNSKILED ORKER (HG),AGRL. WORKSHOP,REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD.,(RAIDCO), KANNOTHUMCHAL. ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1 GOVT. PLEADER SRI. K.S. MOHAMMED HASHIM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 7625/2009 ------------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF FEEDER CATEGORY APPROVED BY R2. EXT.P2 PROCEEDINGS DT. 24-5-1996. EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS DT. 15-1-2007. EXT.P4 PROCEEDINGS DT 3-1-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 7625 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 18th September, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner and the 3rd respondent are employed as skilled workers on daily wages in the 1st respondent-Society with effect from 1993. The services of both of them were regularised on 20-5-1996. As such, according to the petitioner, both of them stand similarly situated in respect of service benefits. The petitioner's grievance now is that by Ext. P4, certain service benefits are sought to be conferred on the 3rd respondent , which have been denied to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the same amounts to discrimination. 2. I am of opinion that this is a matter which the petitioner should agitate in proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. A Division Bench of this Court has, in Malappuram Dt. Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Malappuram Dt. Co-op. Bank Employees W.F. Committee, 2001(2) KLT 44, held that a writ petition is maintainable in respect of service matters of an employee of the Society if the Society contravenes any provision of the Act or Rules. The petitioner has no case that any provision of the Act or Rules have been contravened in the matter. Therefore, I am of opinion that it is only appropriate that the petitioner resorts to proceedings under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act in respect of the subject matter. This is all the more be so since for deciding the issues involved, it would require evidence to be adduced. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek remedies under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/