IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16743 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: PETITIONER ---------------------- B.JANARDHANAN NAIR, AGED 54, S/O. BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALEEKAL HOUSE, ADINAD NORTH.P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ALAPPUZHA. 3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM DISTRICT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. (A 271) KAYAMKULAM.P.O, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.16743 of 2008-R = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT 1.Having regard to the nature of the orders being issued hereunder, notice to the third respondent is disposed with preserving its right to move this Court for review of this judgment, if aggrieved. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 3.Petitioner was an employee of the third respondent. On 27-12-2002, he was placed under suspension followed by the issuance of memo of charges on 3-1-2003 culminating in an order terminating him from service on 7-12-2003, stated to be with effect from 27-12-2002. All those WP(C)16743/2008 -: 2 :- actions were after the coming into force of Act 1/2000, by which Section 69 was amended bringing all disputes in relation to service matters of employees of co-operative societies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitration court. The Registrar is precluded thereby from interfering with such matters. 4.Be that as it may, the petitioner filed a representation before the Joint Registrar and moved this Court for directions. This Court directed the Joint Registrar to consider that representation. The Joint Registrar issued only an order relating to subsistence allowance. Therefore, there was really no consideration of the question of the case as regards the disciplinary proceedings and the punishment imposed. At any rate, the Registrar did not have the jurisdiction to do so. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, namely that the Government be directed to consider an appeal filed against WP(C)16743/2008 -: 3 :- Joint Registrar's decision. The remedy that the petitioner could pursue is only by way of an arbitration in terms of Section 69 of the Act. To aid that process, Ext.P3 order except to the extent it governs payment of subsistence allowance is vacated leaving the petitioner with liberty to move for arbitration in accordance with law. It is clarified that the third respondent will be entitled to raise all contentions in opposition to the said arbitration case. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/0506