IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 20392 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ P.BASHEER, S/O.LATE M.PEERU MOHAMMED, PUNNAKKADAYIL VEEDU, KANIYAPURAM, PALLIPPURAM VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK & DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.SUBRAMANIAM SRI.M.S.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE VELLANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.2379, VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695543, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE PRESIDENT, VELLANADU SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., NO.2379, VELLANADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695543. ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM FOR R2 SRI.DIPU.R FOR R2 SMT.MERCIAMMA MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.K.S.HARIDAS FOR R2 SRI.V.RENJITH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20392/09 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE BANK. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPERESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE RESPONDENT BANK. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 130/2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIOENR TO IA 130/2008. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND PETITION IN IA 131/2008 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT BANK BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE PETITIOENR TO IA 131/2008. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CO- OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT IN IA NOS.130/2008 AND 131/2008. EXTS. OF R2 EXT.R2(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 22.2.1991 BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. EXT.R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 4.12.1989 BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.R2(c): TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 13.12.89 BY THE PETITIONER. WPC NO.20392/09 -2- EXT.R2(d): TRUE COPY OF the PAGE NO.27 OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIOENR EVIDENCING THE ENTRY AS PER THE RESOLUTION NO.275 DT 5.4.90. EXT.R2(e): TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT ENDORSEMENTS AT PAGE NO.33 OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20392 OF 2009 (T) ===================== Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was working as Secretary of the 1st respondent, a Co-operative Society incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated and finally he was demoted as Accountant. Appeal filed was rejected and thereafter he raised an arbitration case as ARC 97/04, in which Ext.P1 ex parte award was rendered by the Arbitrator on 30th of December, 2005. 2. According to the petitioner, by Exts.P2 to P4, he represented for the implementation of the award and despite this, an advertisement was issued by the 1st respondent inviting applications for filling up the post of Secretary. At that stage, WP (C) No.15122/08 was filed by him and by an interim order passed on 22/5/2008, this Court stayed further proceedings for appointment. It was also made clear subsequently by order dated 18/7/2008 that either the petitioner shall be reinstated or paid salary and other allowances. 3. At that stage Bank filed Ext.P8 application dated WPC 20392/09 :2 : 17/10/08 seeking to set aside Ext.P1 ex parte award along with Ext.P6 application for condoning the delay in filing Ext.P8. The petitioner filed Ext.P7 objection to Ext.P6 and Ext.P9 counter to Ext.P8. The matter was considered by the Arbitrator and by Ext.P10, the delay was condoned and the ex parte award was set aside. It is challenging Ext.P10 order referred to above that this writ petition is filed. 4. The first contention raised is that powers of the Arbitration Court are those conferred under Section 70A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and under Rule 67 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules and that there is no power to set aside an ex parte award. However interpreting Rule 67(4)(a) and (b), which is now substituted by Rule 67(7)(a) and (b) of the Rules, this Court has in Paul v. Asst.Registrar (1998(2) KLT 449), held that Tribunal engaged in the administration of justice has the inherent power to do whatever is required in the promotion of administration of justice. It is held that Rule confers power to decide the dispute ex parte when a party to the dispute is absent and that when satisfactory cause is shown, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has no power to examine the merits of the case and to decide the petition to set aside the ex parte order. WPC 20392/09 :3 : Since the power of Arbitration Court to set aside ex parte order is therefore fully answered by the aforesaid judgment, this contention now canvassed before me is only to be rejected and I do so. 5. Then, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that specific powers conferred on the Arbitration Court does not include the power to condone the delay. He also placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Calicut City Service Co-operative Bank and another v. State of Kerala and others (2008(3) KHC 917) and Thomas Thomas and another v. Kottayam Municipality and another (2008(4) KHC 26). The case dealt with in 2008(3) KHC 917 was the power of the Government to condone delay in filing appeal under Section 83 of the Co-operative Societies Act. In that context, it was held that in the absence of being conferred power, the Government cannot entertain an appeal belatedly filed. Similarly, in the case dealt with in 2008(4) KHC 26, having regard to the provisions of the Kerala Municipalities Act, it was held that since the said Act provides special provision for limitation, the Limitation Act is inapplicable in view of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. 6. In so far as this case is concerned, first of all the WPC 20392/09 :4 : arbitration is raised before the Arbitration Court, which has all trappings of a Civil Court. If so, there is no reason to take a restricted view that the Limitation Act is inapplicable or to apply the reasonings adopted in the aforesaid two judgments, which were rendered in totally different factual situations. Therefore, I am not prepared to apply the aforesaid judgments and hold that there is no power to condone the delay available to the Arbitration Court. 7. Thirdly, it was contended that the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P7 objection filed by him to Ext.P6 application for condoning the delay are not seen considered in Ext.P10. True, every point raised have not been considered. But then, as it is the settled position in law that in matters of condonation of delay, the Court should not adopt a mere technical view and to deny an opportunity to a litigant to have his case considered by a court on merits. It is on that basis, it has been held that in matters of condonation of delay, liberal view should be taken. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner was proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings on the allegation of having accepted fake ornaments and extended loan on that basis. It was a case that in the process, Society has suffered huge loss. It is on WPC 20392/09 :5 : conclusion of the proceedings that he was ordered to be demoted and the award was rendered on an ex parte basis. When the application is made by the society to set aside the ex parte award, in my view, the society could not be denied an opportunity to contest the case on merits adopting a technical view. However, fact remains that the award was rendered on 30/12/05 and the society's case of total ignorance of the award cannot fully be accepted particularly having regard to the fact that atleast by Ext.P4 registered letter, petitioner demanded implementation of the award. 8. In these circumstances, I feel the arbitration court ought to have condoned the delay and set aside the ex parte order only on terms. However, I do not think at this distance of time, there is any point in remitting the matter on that issue. Therefore, I direct that the 1st respondent shall pay cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the petitioner and on production of evidence of payment, the Arbitration Court will proceed with the matter. In all other respects, the writ petition will stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp