IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2009 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1931 WA.No. 741 of 2009() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2449/2009 Dated 22/01/2009 APPELLANT(S): 1. KERALA STATE COIRFED EMPLOYEES COINGRESS (INTUC), COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA-12, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, A.A. SHUKKUR, KURUMPELIL HOUSE, SEA VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. A. YACOB, MACHINE ASSISTANT, R.C.P UNIT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA - 12, (PANACHUVEEDU, LAJNATH WARD, ALAPPUZHA) BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KOLLAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., (COIRFED), ALAPPUZHA - 12. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU- R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 741 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellants are the writ petitioners. The Writ Petition was filed by them challenging Ext.P7 memo of charges issued to the second appellant and Ext.P9 proceedings of the second respondent deciding to hold an enquiry into Ext.P7 charge memo, on finding that the explanation, Ext.P8, submitted by the second appellant is not satisfactory. According to the appellants, the action taken against the second appellant is in violation of the standing orders. Further, the salary of the second appellant has already been cut on the ground of participating in a strike without notice. According to the appellants, the disciplinary proceedings will amount to a second punishment for the very same misconduct. So, the Writ Petition was filed. But, the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the impugned proceedings on the ground that the appellants have remedies before other forums, including the one provided under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. W.A. NO. 741/2009 2 2. We notice that the learned Single Judge declined jurisdiction on the ground of availability of alternative remedies. The exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, the learned Single Judge rightly exercised the discretion not to entertain the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Appeal is accordingly dismissed, but without prejudice to the contentions of the appellants and their right to move other forums for appropriate reliefs. It is clarified that the order of the learned Single Judge will not stand in the way of the appellants perusing their remedies under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 741/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO. 741/2009 JUDGMENT 10th June, 2009 W.A. NO. 741/2009 4