IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19312 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.K.HYDROSE,S/O.KUNJU MOHAMMED, MUTTATH HOUSE,CHERANALLUR,KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-34. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHERANELLUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.62,CHERANELLUR,KOCHI-34, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),KANAYANNUR,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.19312 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 17th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The subject matter of this writ petition relates to the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner way back in 1971. 2. Facts of the case are that in 1969, the petitioner was appointed as a Salesman in the sales Depot run by the 1st respondent. On the allegation of deficit of stock worth Rs.4807.51, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and finally he was dismissed from service by order dated 27/03/1971. To recover the loss, the Bank initiated ARC No.202/1971 against the petitioner and his father, who had furnished a surety bond at the time of his appointment. In the ARC, written statements dated 23/10/1971 were filed by the father and son, copies of which are Exts.P2 & P3. Replication filed by the Bank is Ext.P4. The Arbitrator passed an award dated 23/10/1982 decreeing Ext.P1. 3. The petitioner filed an appeal as Appeal No. 10/1983 WP(C) No.19312/2009 -2- against the award before the 3rd respondent Tribunal, who by judgment dated 29/12/1983 set aside the award and remanded the matter for fresh consideration and with liberty to the parties to adduce additional evidence. 4. On remand, the case was renumbered as ARC No.1372/1988. On remand, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 additional written statement, Ext.P6 list of witnesses, and Ext.P7 petition to call upon the Society to produce additional documents. Ext.P9 reply dated 22/03/1989 was filed by the Society, producing certain documents and also informing that some of the documents sought to be produced were not maintained by the Society, and some of the the documents were not available at that point of time. The petitioner states that oral evidence of three additional witnesses were tendered and that Ext.P10 argument note was also submitted. Finally, Ext.P11 award dated 12/04/2000 was passed by the Arbitrator decreeing the claim and allowing the Society to realise Rs.4,410.87 with interest at 12% from 31/03/1971 together with costs. 5. The petitioner filed Ext.P12 appeal before the 3rd WP(C) No.19312/2009 -3- respondent Tribunal. In Ext.P12, two important contentions urged were that the award was passed by an Officer, who did not hear the petitioner. It was also contended that the oral and documentary evidences, tendered after the remand of the ARC, were ignored by the Arbitrator. The Tribunal by Ext.P14 judgment dated 27/04/2009, dismissed the appeal. In the aforesaid background challenging Ext.P11 award and Ext.P14 judgment, this writ petition is filed. 6. It is contended that not only that the Arbitrator did not examine the additional oral and documentary evidence produced after the remand, but also that these documents were not even available before the Tribunal while considering Ext.P12 appeal. 7. In my view, this contention of the learned counsel is belied by the contents of Ext.P14 judgment itself, where in Paragraph 11, the Tribunal had made extensive reference to the additional documentary evidence produced before the Arbitrator after the matter was remanded. The other plea that the award was passed by an Officer, who did not hear the petitioner, in my view does not survive at this distance of time, as the petitioner had a WP(C) No.19312/2009 -4- satisfactory hearing before the Tribunal, which has rendered Ext.P14, a well reasoned judgment. 8. A reading of Ext.P14 judgment shows that the entire evidence, oral and documentary, and all the contentions have been appreciated by the Tribunal at the time when it had rendered the judgment. In my view, this controversy, which started way back in 1971 should end at least at this distance of time. I see no good reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg