IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 14TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26998 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ 1. BINI JOHN ,THADIPPUZHA VEEDU, PERUMTHURUTHU P.O.,KALLARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJI.T. THADIPPUZHA VEEDU PERUMTHURUTHU P.O.,KALLARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOTTAYAM. 2. MANJOOR VANITHA SHAKARANA SANGHAM, LTD.NO. K.1052, MANJOOR P.O.,KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY/ PRESIDENT. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rtr THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.26998 of 2008-L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of September, 2008. JUDGMENT The first petitioner made a fixed deposit with the second respondent. The second petitioner is her husband. He auctioned a chit conducted by the second respondent. The first petitioner was also an employee of the second respondent. She was dismissed from service. That matter is now pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Idukki. It also appears that the second respondent has certain claims against the first petitioner on account of an alleged mismanagement and misappropriation. These are matters which have to be handled only in proceedings under Section 69 of the KCS Act. If Ext.P6 is received and pending and if that can be considered as a plaint for the purpose of initiating arbitration proceedings under Section 69, the first respondent will do WP(C)26998/2008 -: 2 :- the needful to have the arbitration proceedings commenced on the basis of Ext.P6 in terms of the said section, on collection of due fee, prescribed for such arbitration proceedings. In view of the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, I do not find it appropriate to fix an outer limit for disposal of the arbitration proceedings before conclusion of the Industrial Tribunal. However, the matter could be expedited. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/050908