IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1931 WA.No. 2434 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.30568/2009 Dated 29/10/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ TRIVANDRUM CO-OPERATIVE URBAN BANK LTD NO.1959, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. K.JANARDHANAN NAIR, TILAK, SMARA 94 SASTHAMANGALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS-R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2434 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 29.10.2009. In the Writ Petition, issue pertains to the proceedings initiated against the first respondent. Appellant is the Writ Petitioner. The proceedings culminated in the order of dismissal. It is in such circumstances, the first respondent has pursued the matter under 69 (2) (d) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The said authority passed an interim order directing re-instatement of the first respondent pending final order in the arbitration cases. That order was challenged by the bank in the Writ Petition. Learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order and disposed of the Writ Petition directing the appellant-bank to re-instate the first respondent subject to the orders passed in the arbitration cases. Aggrieved by the interim order, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. When the Writ Appeal came before us for admission, after hearing the counsel on both sides we passed the following order: W.A. NO.2434 of 2009 2 “Heard counsel for the appellant and Sri.ASP Kurup, counsel for the 1st respondent. There will be a stay of operation of Exts.P6 and P8 orders passed by Arbitrator. However, it is made clear that in the event of the first respondent succeed in the Arbitration he will be entitled to all the benefits as if he had continued in service. Post for further orders on 5/11/2009.” 3. In view of the order extracted above, we do not think that any further orders are necessary in the Writ Appeal since the order safeguards the interests of both parties. In that view of the matter, judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the Writ Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order extracted above. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE spc