IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2009 / 9TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 26743 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. KURUPPUMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.E.257, KURUPPUMPADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KURUPPUMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.E.257, KURUPPUMPADY, DIRECTOR BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.K.DAVID, SECRETARY (UNDER DISMISSAL) KURUPPUMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. E.257, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VENGOLA P.O., ERNAKULAM. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB R2, R3 BY GOVT. PELADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON 29/01/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.26743 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners, a co-operative society and its President, challenge Ext.P11 decision of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. 2. The first respondent was the Secretary of the first petitioner. He was placed under suspension and later, dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. He moved the arbitration court against that decision. The arbitration court set aside the enquiry report and allowed the parties to prove their respective case. The society filed an appeal against that before the Co-operative Tribunal. The first respondent employee challenged the maintainability of that appeal. The society applied for conversion of that appeal into a revision, in the event of the appeal being found to be not maintainable. The Tribunal issued Ext.P9 order, holding that the appeal is not maintainable and it cannot be converted into a revision. WPC.26743/08 Page numbers That decision was challenged by the society before this Court. In Ext.P10, it was held that the decision rendered by an arbitration court holding that the disciplinary proceedings and the enquiry report cannot stand is a decision which is final in so far as that matter is concerned and is, therefore, an award in terms of Section 70(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter, the 'Act', for short. It was accordingly held that an appeal against such an award was available in terms of Section 82 of the Act. Following Ext.P10 judgment of this Court, the Tribunal heard the parties on the appeal on merits and issued Ext.P11 order, holding that the arbitrator was right in granting a de novo trial after holding that the enquiry report was liable to be set aside. This is under challenge. 3. When this matter was taken up on 30.9.2008, it was clarified that the pendency of this writ petition shall not be a ground for adjourning the proceedings before the arbitrator, however, that the arbitrator will not pass a final award. WPC.26743/08 Page numbers 4. The challenge to the decision of the Tribunal (Ext.P11) is raised on the plea that the definition of the term “dispute” as defined in Section 2(i) of the Act and a combined reading of Sections 69, 80, 70A and 70B would show that a dispute referable to disciplinary matters are not capable of being adjudicated by the arbitration court. It was also contended that the exclusionary clause as contained in Section 100 of the Act and the provisions of Industrial Laws would clearly show that such provision for arbitration is not available. 5. In the course of arguments, it was noticed that what the petitioners essentially seek is re-consideration of Ext.P10 judgment, particularly the findings therein that the disciplinary proceedings falls within the purview of arbitration and the findings in Ext.P10 in that regard needs a second look. I am afraid that this contention is not available to the petitioners for the simple reason that Ext.P10 is a judgment inter partis the petitioners and the first respondent, in relation to the same dispute and it was thereafter, that the WPC.26743/08 Page numbers parties were heard by the Tribunal and Ext.P11 was issued. The finality of Ext.P10 and the issuance of Ext.P11 following Ext.P10 preclude the petitioners from challenging the correctness of Ext.P10 judgment in the course of the hearing of this writ petitioner, even if that judgment requires re- consideration. I hasten to add that to myself, I do not find any ground to re-consider the views in Ext.P10. 6. In so far as the findings in Ext.P11 as to the correctness of the decision of the arbitration court is concerned, the plea of the petitioners is as contained in grounds F and G of the writ petition. The contention is that the findings of the arbitrator on facts is wrong. The said findings, as challenged before the Tribunal, was considered by the Tribunal while issuing Ext.P11. A perusal of the impugned Ext.P11 would show that the Tribunal considered the contentions of the petitioners on the merits, on facts and the conclusions in Ext.P11 are supported by reasons. The decision of the arbitration court, affirmed as per Ext.P11, is also issued stating reasons. WPC.26743/08 Page numbers Following the issuance of Ext.P11, the findings on facts have to be taken as concluded except in exceptional situations of perversity in the matter of appreciation of evidence. I do not find any such ground having been made out in support of this writ petition. The findings in Ext.P11 are available on the face of the record and cannot be treated as perverse. The Tribunal has adverted to and considered the contentions and has evaluated the materials. Hence, there is no ground warranting interference with those findings in exercise of authority under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.