IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10126 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.N. GOVINDAN NAIR, SENIOR CLERK, PAIPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 679, MEEMPANAL, MANARI.P.O. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PAIPRA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.679, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAIPRA, MANARY.P.O - 686 726. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (AUDIT), MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 668. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.10126 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is an employee of the first respondent bank, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P7 notice issued by the Secretary of the first respondent bank calling upon her to show cause why the second time bound higher grade granted to her should not be cancelled. Under section 69(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act any dispute between the first respondent society and the petitioner, its employee, can be decided only by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. Sub-section (2)(d) of section 69 of the Act stipulates that any dispute arising in connection with the employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of section 80 including their promotion and inter se seniority shall be deemed to be a dispute for the purpose of sub-section (1) of section 69 of the Act. The petitioner has no case that the first respondent society is not a class of society specified in section 69 (1) of the Act. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that W.P(C) NO.10126/2011 -:2:- the petitioner should move the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking redressal of his grievance instead of straight away invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further a Full Bench of this Court has in P.Bhaskaran & others v. Additional Secretary & others, 1987 (2) KLT 903 held that no writ will lie against a co-operative society. Therefore, for that reason also, I am of the opinion that the petitioner cannot challenge Ext.P7 in this writ petition. I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P7 in other appropriate proceedings. His contentions on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.10126 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 30th March, 2011