IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2009 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 36724 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.A.BABU, KUNDIL VEEDU,,P.O.PULLOOR, IRINJALAKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. PULLOOR SERVICE CO.OP.BANK, LTD.NO.611, PULLOOR, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO.OP.SOCIETIES (GEMERAL), O/O.THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO.OP, SOCIETIES,(GENERAL), MUKUNDAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 36724 OF 2008 (V) ===================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims that he was a salesman appointed under the 1st respondent Bank. On the ground that there was shortage of stock of Rs.3,19,204/-, proceedings were initiated against him and finally, he was terminated from service. That dispute is now pending before the Co-operative Arbitration Court as ARC No.195/08. 2. Meanwhile, the Bank instituted ARC No.6926/04 before the Registrar for realisation of Rs.3,19,204, being the value of the stock found short and also ARC No.3429/07 to recover Rs.3,72,724/- allegedly the loan arrears due from the petitioner. In this writ petition, what the petitioner submits is that since the subject matter of the aforesaid three proceedings are connected, it is necessary that all the three proceedings should be consolidated, tried and disposed of by one authority. 3. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12/12/2008 calling upon the Bank to state its objections if any on the prayer made, the Bank has filed a counter affidavit. According WPC 36724/08 :2 : to the Bank, in so far as ARC No.6926/04 is concerned, the petitioner in his letter dated 13/8/04 admitted the liability and sought time for payment. It is stated that liability of the petitioner is totally independent and separate from the subject matter of ARC No.195/08 and therefore there is absolutely no reason to consolidate that proceedings along with the proceedings in ARC No.195/08 pending before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. 4. In so far as ARC NO.3429/07 is concerned, according to the Bank, the said proceedings have been initiated for realisation of the loan dues. However,this case of the Bank is disputed by the counsel for the petitioner contending that the amount that is sought to be realised is the amount towards the credit sales effected by the petitioner. 5. The Bank would also submit that in terms of Section 69 (h) of the Act, monetary disputes are exclusively within the purview of the Registrar and in so far as non-monetary disputes are concerned, such disputes are to be tried by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. It is contended that since the legislature has conferred such exclusive jurisdiction on the respective authorities, this Court will not be justified in passing orders contrary to the WPC 36724/08 :3 : legislative mandate. 6. I have considered the submissions made by both sides. 7. Section 69(h) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act provides that non-monetary disputes shall be exclusively tried by Co-operative Arbitration Court while the monetary disputes are to be tried by the Registrar. This Section also provides that no other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain such claims. Therefore, the legislature, having conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Court and the Arbitrator as the case may be, this Court will not be justified in passing orders which will run counter to the clear legislative mandate. Therefore, the clubbing of the disputes as sought for by the petitioner will be against the provisions of Section 69(h) of the Act. 8. Of the three proceedings that are pending, the petitioner can at best say that the proceedings in ARC No.6926/04 where the Bank is seeking to realise the value of the stock found short, is related to the proceedings in ARC No.195/08 pending before the Arbitration Court. In view of the provisions in Section 69(h) of the Act, it is not possible to club these cases. However, I also do not think it necessary or proper to direct that WPC 36724/08 :4 : proceedings before the Arbitrator should be kept pending until the proceedings before the Arbitration court is finalised. Even if both the proceedings are allowed to continue before the respective Courts, I do not think that can cause any prejudice to the petitioner for the reason that each of the forums will have to adjudicate the case before it on the materials that are available before them. Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to keep the arbitration case before the Arbitrator pending until the Arbitration Court decides ARC No.195/08 as sought for by the petitioner. However, it is directed that if award favourable to the Bank is passed in ARC No.6926/04, its implementation shall be kept in abeyance until the Arbitration Court finalises the proceedings in ARC No.195/08. 9. As already stated, the proceedings in ARC No.3429/07 is, according to the Bank, for realisation of the loan dues from the petitioner. Petitioner submits that this amount represents the advance that the Bank gave for running the store. This certainly is a matter for the Arbitrator to decide. In any case, the subject matter of the dispute cannot be related to the subject matter of ARC No.195/08 and proceedings in one, cannot cause prejudice in WPC 36724/08 :5 : the proceedings in the other. Therefore, I do not think it necessary for passing any order as sought for by the petitioner in so far as ARC No.3429/07 is concerned. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp