IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2008 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 311 of 2007(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------ 1. T.V.NOUSHAD, S/O.MOIDEEN, PEON, THENMALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., RESIDING AT THAYYIL VALIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, THENNALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. P.T.ABDUSSALAH, S/O.SAIDALAVI, PEON, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., RESIDING AT PATTATHODIKA HOUSE, POST THENNALA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. E.K.SULAIMAN, S/O.MARAKKARUTTY, PEON, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., RESIDING AT EDAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, POST VALAKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. A.SAJITH, S/O.SUKUMARA KURUP, PEON, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., RESIDING AT SREE SADANAM, POST SOUTH KUTTOOR, KALPAKANCHERY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. K.A.JITHIN, S/O.VASUDEVAN, PEON, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., RESIDING AT VIPABIKA, PANDAMANGALAM, POST KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN SRI.P.A.HARISH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE ASST. REGISTRAR OF CO-OP. SOCIETIES, TIRUR. W.P.(C) No.311/2007 : 2 : 3. THE SECRETARY, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD., POST VALAKKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE PRESIDENT, THENNALA SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3, 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.311 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners were appointed in the service of the Thennala Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., of which, the third respondent is the Secretary and the 4th respondent, the President. It appears that their appointments were made as against vacancies identified as having arisen on account of certain promotions. The Joint Registrar is stated to have taken a view later on, in supervisory jurisdiction, that the promotion of those persons were objectionable on account of their not having completed the minimum period of three years in the feeder category and accordingly, ordered the Bank to revert them to regularise their holding of the original posts in the feeder category. As a consequential fall out, the petitioners have been removed from service by the employer Bank. WPC.311/07 Page numbers 2. At the stage of admission and thereafter, it was submitted on behalf of the Bank before this Court that the petitioners were not relieved and accordingly they continued to work on the strength of interim orders of this Court. Today, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Bank that following the order of the Joint Registrar to revert and regularise the other incumbents, the Bank had issued reversion orders, however, that those employees had carried that matter under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the reversion stands stayed by the arbitration court. 3. Having regard to what is aforesaid, it is beyond dispute that the petitioners faced the consequence of the decision of the Joint Registrar in supervisory jurisdiction, however, that they were not heard by the Joint Registrar before such decision is taken. Not only that, sufficient stalemate in the entire matter can also be visualised having regard to the arbitration proceedings arising out of the reversion orders issued by the Bank, following the Joint Registrar's decision. In such circumstances, it is absolutely WPC.311/07 Page numbers necessary that the petitioners are given opportunity of pre- decisional hearing by the Joint Registrar in question as to whether their employment could be sustained by cancelling the reversion of the other employees or even by sustaining those orders. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that the orders of termination of service of the petitioners, as issued by the employer Bank, will stand suspended until the Joint Registrar hears the petitioners and takes a decision on the aforesaid question. Let that be done within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It will be open to the competent authorities to consider the question of sending the appropriate employee for the JDC course since this writ petition is no more pending. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.