IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 22543 of 2008(H) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S UNION LTD, (AFFILIATED TO KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.) KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-REP;BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCER'S UNION LTD., (AFFILIATED TO KERALA CO-OPERATIVE MILK KARKETING FEDERATION LTD.) KSHEERA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, KOLLAM DAIRY, THEVALLI.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, ADV. SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. M.NASARULLA, NAHAS GARDEN, PARAYIL, EDAVA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE (DAIRY DEPARTMENT), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, R2 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.22543/2008-H: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER ON 09/06/05. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 21/01/06 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 26/06/2008 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.22543 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard. 2. Ext.P3 is an interim order passed by the arbitration court. Its effect is one ordering reinstatement, that too, without hearing the employer - writ petitioner. The stay order is stated to be one issued at the stage of admission, i.e., while issuing notice to the employer. The plethora of decisions governing the field of interlocutory reliefs and final reliefs in labour matters, as rendered by the Apex Court, would stand to advise that the law laid is that an order for reinstatement does not follow even as a natural consequence of interference with orders of the employer, issued in the realm of discipline. It is all the more important that interlocutory orders would not issue ordering reinstatement. At any rate, an order for reinstatement cannot be passed as an interlocutory order even before issuing notice to the employer. These positions of law stares at the beneficiary of Ext.P3 and therefore, his learned counsel has very rightly requested for a direction that the arbitration court may consider the case filed WPC.22543/08 Page numbers by him finally. The impugned order has to necessarily go. But then, the co-operative arbitration court has only one arbitrator for the entire State and this Court has a fair assessment of the work load of that office, since, in a different matter, this Court has called for and obtained the statistics of the workload, as also a clear idea of the non-availability of staff, to be appointed by the State Government for that establishment. These matters advise me not to issue any order overloading that officer. For the foregoing reasons, Ext.P3 is quashed and it is ordered that if the petitioners request the co-operative arbitration court for an earlier consideration of ARC.No.74/08, that court will deal with that request appropriately. At any rate, the employer will place any pleadings that it has before the arbitration court, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.