IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 393 of 2011(Y) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SURESH BABU.G., SHIJU NIVAS, MITHRUMMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 610. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN, SRI. T.R. HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE MITHRUMMALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2452, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MITHRUMMALA P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 610. 2. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MITHRUMMALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.2452, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MITHRUMMALA P.O., NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 610. 3. K.G.SREEKALA, KAMALAVILASAM, KUNDALAMKUZHI, KOCHUVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 663. 4. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 393 OF 2011 -------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a member of the first respondent bank. He has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P3 and Ext.P4 awards passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court allowing the appeal filed by the third respondent, a former Accountant of the first respondent bank and directing her reinstatement in service. Under section 82 (1)(a) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1968, an appeal lies from awards passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court under sub section (1) of section 70 of the Act to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The period of limitation prescribed for filing such an appeal is 60 days from the date of the decision or award. Sub section (1) of section 82 states that any person aggrieved by the award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court may within 60 days from the date of such decision or award, as the case may be, appeal to the Tribunal. The petitioner thus has a meaningful and alternate remedy by way of appeal. Since the petitioner was not a party to the arbitration cases he will have to apply for the leave of the Tribunal to prefer an appeal. That by itself is not a reason to WPC No.393/2011 2 hold that the remedy by way of appeal is not a meaningful remedy. I therefore finds no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to canvass the correctness of Ext.P3 and P4 awards in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.393/2011 3 WPC No.393/2011 4