IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37866 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.ANILKUMAR, CHANDRIKA VILASOM, TANNIMOODU, PALUVALLY.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION), NANNIYODE KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY 57(D) APCOS, NANNIYODE, PACHA-P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT) 2. VINU S.LAL, LAL COTTAGE, THANNIMOODU, ELAVATTOM.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 2. THE PRESIDENT, NANNIYODE KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.57(D) APCOS, NANNIYODE, PACHA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562. 3. THE NANNIYODE KSHEEROLPADAKA CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.57(D) APCOS, NANNIYODE, PACHA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.37866 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are employees of the third respondent society. The first petitioner is the Secretary and the second petitioner is a Bill Collector. It is stated that the petitioners were denied employment from 1.8.2010 and thereupon they submitted Exts.P1 and P2 representations before the first respondent, who is the officer empowered to exercise the power of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in respect of Diary Co-operative Societies. Later, the petitioners were placed under suspension by Exts.P3 and P4 orders passed by the President of the third respondent society and a memo of charges was also served on the first petitioner. This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action on Exts.P1 and P2 representations and to pay them salary till the date of suspension and subsistence allowance thereafter. 2. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 3.1.2011. It is stated that the first respondent has initiated action against four members of the managing committee of the third respondent society under rule 44(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 and they have been disqualified by Ext.R1(a) order dated 8.11.2010. However, as regards the disciplinary action W.P.(C) No.37866/2010 2 initiated against the petitioners, it is stated that the first respondent cannot interfere. As regards payment of subsistence allowance, it is stated that if the third respondent society denies subsistence allowance, necessary directions can be given to the managing committee to comply with the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the rules thereunder regarding payment of subsistence allowance. It is also stated that the petitioners have not so far submitted any representation regarding the non-payment of subsistence allowance. 3. I heard Sri.George Poonthottam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Basant Balaji, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents. In the nature of the order that I propose to pass, I do not deem it necessary to issue notice to and hear respondents 2 and 3. It is evident from Exts.P3 and P4 orders that the petitioners have been placed under suspension on 2.9.2010 and 3.10.2010 respectively. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the third respondent society is not a society covered by section 30 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and therefore the petitioners cannot move the Co- operative Arbitration Court challenging the order of suspension and the only remedy available to them is to invoke the power of the Registrar under rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules W.P.(C) No.37866/2010 3 and seek recission of the resolution placing them under suspension. It is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent that till date the petitioners have not moved the first respondent complaining about their suspension. Though they have filed Exts.P1 and P2 representations, the said representations were filed before the orders of suspension were passed, complaining about the denial of employment and non payment of salary. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners should move the first respondent complaining about the non payment of subsistence allowance and also canvassing the correctness of the orders of suspension. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioners filing separate representations before the first respondent setting out their grievances, the first respondent shall consider the same with notice to respondents 2 and 3 and take an appropriate action thereon expeditiously, and in any event, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the representations. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.