IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JUNE 2011 / 25TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16000 of 2011(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.BHARGHAVAN PILLAI, SON OF LATE VISWANATHA PILLAI, 'ASWATHI', MARUTHUMOOD, CHETTACHAL.P.O., VIA VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1514, CHETTACHAL.P.O., VIA VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, CHAYAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1514, CHETTACHAL.P.O., VIA VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16000/2011 EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TERMINATION LETTER DATED 7.7.2010 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION CASE FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT APPEARED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 1.6.2011. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16000 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a former employee of the second respondent, a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act, 1969. He was placed under suspension by order passed on 20.6.2009. Later a memo of charges was served on him, a domestic enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service by Ext.P1 order passed on 7.7.2010. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Board of Directors, which was dismissed by order passed on 2.11.2010. He thereafter filed Ext.P2 Arbitration Case before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein he has prayed for setting aside the order of suspension, Ext.P1 order dismissing him from service and also the appellate order affirming Ext.P1. This writ petition is filed contending that even though Ext.P1 has not become final, the bank has taken steps to fill up the post of Salesman which the petitioner was holding, and if the petitioner is reinstated in service after setting aside the punishment imposed, he will be put to serious prejudice. 2. It is evident from the materials on record that aggrieved by the order dismissing him from service, the petitioner has already invoked section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by moving W.P.(C) No.16000 of 2011 2 the Co-operative Arbitration Court. Sub-section (2) of section 70 of Act empowers the Co-operative Arbitration Court to pass such interlocutory orders as it may deem fit in the interests of justice pending resolution of the dispute before it. The petitioner can therefore in my opinion move the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking appropriate interim reliefs. I am therefore of the opinion that the petitioner should move the Co-operative Arbitration Court instead of rushing to this Court. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition, but with the observation that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate application for stay in A.R.C.No.115 of 2010, the Co-operative Arbitration Court before which it is pending shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within two weeks from the date on which the application for stay is presented. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.