IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2009 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 14009 of 2009(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.N.SIVASANKARAN, 'KAILASAM', POST K PURAM, THANALLOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.M.11, P.B.NO.55 TIRUR-676 01, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TIRUR CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.11, TIRUR, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT. MR.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.G.ARUN, SC FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14009 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner submits that he was working as the Junior Supervisor under the 3rd respondent. It is stated that following certain allegations of misconduct an enquiry was conducted, and ultimately, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 14/01/2006. According to the petitioner, aggrieved by the proceedings resulting in his dismissal, he filed Ext.P5 arbitration dispute before the 2nd respondent, which was numbered as ARC 152/2008. The complaint in this writ petition is that although on several occasions, the arbitration dispute was posted at the camp sitting of the 2nd respondent at Calicut, the matter has not been disposed of. In this writ petition, what the petitioner seeks is a direction to the 2nd respondent to expeditiously dispose of ARC No.152/2008 (Ext.P5). WP(C) No.14009/2009 -2- 3. If as stated by the petitioner, the ARC filed has not been heard so far, particularly in view of the fact that the subject matter of the ARC is the dismissal of the petitioner, it is only appropriate that the ARC is disposed of by the 2nd respondent on an expeditious basis. 4. Having regard to the complaint regarding the delay in the disposal of the ARC, I direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of ARC No.152/2008 with notice to the parties and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg