IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2011 / 21ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 7101 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THANKEY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1003, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT KADAKKARAPPALLY P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CO-OPERATION (C) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA. 3. BIJU.K.KUNJAPPAN, KURISINKAL, THAIKKAL P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. INTERNAL AUDITOR THANKEY SCB LTD KADAKKARAPALLY, CHERTHALA. ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN FOR R3 SPL.GOVT.PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN FOR R1 AND R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.7101 of 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a co-operative society. The 3rd respondent is an employee of the said society. Aggrieved by an order passed by the petitioner society promoting Sri.Shibu Varghese from the category of Junior Clerk to the category of Chief Accountant the 3rd respondent filed a petition before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha. The Registrar examined the said complaint and directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha to issue instructions to the petitioner to take steps to cancel the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Alappuzha thereupon sent Ext.P6 letter dated 20.2.2010 to the Secretary/President of the petitioner society. Ext.P6 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner society is that on and with effect from 2.1.2003 when section 69(2)(d) was introduced in the statute, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies or the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies cannot exercise the power W.P(C).No.7101 of 2010 -:2:- under rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to interfere with service disputes raised by employees of co- operative societies. It is contended that Ext.P6 order is therefore, one passed without jurisdiction. 2. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the order passed by the Registrar/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It is contended that the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese as Chief Accountant is illegal and contrary to the Feeder Category Rules. 3. I heard Sri.T.R.Harikumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.Anu Sivaraman, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. It is evident from the pleadings and the materials on record that the direction in Ext.P6 was issued pursuant to a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies against the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese as Chief Accountant. Under section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act any dispute arising in connection with 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 W.P(C).No.7101 of 2010 -:3:- seniority is a dispute falling under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Act. Under the provisions of section 69(1) of the Act non- monetary disputes and disputes regarding inter se seniority of employees have to be resolved by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. It is also stipulated that no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. A learned single Judge of this Court has in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar, 2006(1) KLT 199 held that on and with effect from 2.1.2003 rule 176 cannot be invoked to resolve seniority disputes of the employees and that the Arbitration Court alone can adjudicate the dispute. The said decision was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Raveendran v. State of Kerala, 2007(3) KLT 558. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court and the provisions contained in section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act it has to be necessarily held that the direction issued by the Registrar/Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to cancel the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese acting on a complaint filed by the 3rd respondent cannot be sustained. If the 3rd respondent was aggrieved by the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese, whatever be the ground of attack to the said order of W.P(C).No.7101 of 2010 -:4:- promotion, he ought to have moved the Co-operative Arbitration Court. I accordingly hold that Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. In the result I allow the writ petition and quash Ext.P6. If the 3rd respondent is aggrieved by the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese it will be open to him to question the promotion given to Sri.Shibu Varghese by instituting appropriate proceedings in the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The contention of the petitioner, the 3rd respondent and Sri.Shibu Varghese on the merits are kept open to be resolved by the Arbitration Court. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.7101 of 2010 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 11th January, 2011