IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 912 of 2008(L) ------------------------------ (JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1375/2008 DATED 11/01/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT) .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/ 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------ THE PATTAMBI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATTAMBI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, MR.S.A.ANAND. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.V.UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.KOMAN NAIR, LISHALAYAM, MOORKKATTUPARAMBU, P.O.PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR. K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. MR.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- R.P.No.912 OF 2008 IN W.P(C).1375 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 O R D E R 1.This application for review is filed by the second respondent in W.P.(C).1375/08. 2.The writ petitioner Sri.Unnikrishnan was involved in a criminal case on a ground referable to his conduct while in service of the review petitioner, his employer, a co-operative bank. On his acquittal, he invoked Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules for an order rescinding the resolution of the employer dismissing him from service. He filed W.P(C). 18378/07 before this Court seeking that the said application be considered. It was so directed. The decision of the Joint Registrar was against him. He filed an appeal to the Government. He then moved W.P(C).1375/08. At the stage of admission, it was noticed by this Court that in terms of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Raveendran v. RP.912/08 Page numbers State of Kerala [2007 (3) KLT 558], the remedy that the petitioner may have was only arbitration and not under Rule 176. Accordingly, proceedings generated by the Rule 176 petition was treated as a nullity, leaving the writ petitioner to go for arbitration. Since such decision could not have been objected to by the review petitioner employer, notice was dispensed with in issuing the aforesaid judgment preserving the liberty of the employer to move for review of the judgment. 3. In this application for review, the employer contends that the case of the petitioner has a checkered history, which was suppressed in the writ petition. It contends that on an earlier round, the parties were before the labour court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, followed by writ petition to this Court and in a writ appeal to the Division Bench. It is accordingly pointed out that nothing really survives for consideration in arbitration and invocation of the jurisdiction of the arbitrator under the cover of the judgment sought to be reviewed cannot be abused to get over the concluded RP.912/08 Page numbers proceedings. It is pointed out that there is a likelihood of such exercise by the writ petitioner employee using the judgment sought to be reviewed as a mantle for that purpose. 4. I am clear in my mind that the writ petitioner had not disclosed to this Court materials which were relevant if I were not to treat the writ petition as merely one seeking a mandamus to dispose of a representation. Proceedings which have become final in terms of the ID Act and concluded by the writ proceedings which arose therefrom cannot obviously be re-opened. The effect of the order of acquittal by the criminal court; whether that decision of the criminal court is an order of acquittal by which the employee stands freed of all blemish and whether such an order of acquittal has any impact on any emoluments or other benefits that may be due to the employee, without in any manner discharging the finality attained by the ID Act proceedings and the writ petition and writ appeal arising therefrom, would be different matters. RP.912/08 Page numbers However, the judgment sought to be reviewed was issued without relevant facts on record. It results in injustice. Accordingly, this review petition is allowed, recalling the judgment dated 11.1.2008 in W.P(C).1375/08. The writ petition is listed for hearing. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.18/7.