IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 7096 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ R. SREEJAYA, AGED 30 YEARS D/O.GURUDASAN, KARUNNIYA, KOONAMKULAM BHUTHAKULAM P.O., SOUTH PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.TRIPTEN RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY DAIRY DEVELOPMENT AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR DAIARY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KOLLAM. 3. THE PRESIDENT POLACHIRA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Q 273(B), PACOS, POLACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. 4. SECRETARY (ACTING) POLACHIRA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. Q 273(B), PACOS, POLACHIRA P.O., KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY SR.GP SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. ================================== W.P.(C)No.7096 of 2008 ================================== Dated this the 29th day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Petitioner availed leave for three years without salary to proceed for employment abroad. She was serving a primary co-operative society of which the third respondent is the President and the fourth respondent, the Secretary. She returned after one year and applied for cancellation of leave and rejoined the society. The society insisted that she has to pay the amounts due on the basis of the audit reports during the relevant period. A milk tester was put in charge of the Secretary after the petitioner proceeded on leave. The audit report apparently indicts her also. If the petitioner's request for cancellation of leave and for permission to rejoin duty is not acceded to by the employer society, that would amount to a dispute between them. Any dispute as to whether WPC7096/2008 -:2:- the petitioner has to pay any amount to the employer society may also have to be resolved. These are matters which would fall within the exclusive domain of the Arbitration Court or the Arbitrator, as the case may be, in terms of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Under such circumstances, I do not find any ground to issue any direction to the second respondent to consider the complaints of the petitioner. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to take recourse to appropriate legal action, if needed, this writ petition is dismissed. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. sl.