IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 5609 of 2004(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.K. RADHAKRISHNAN, MULANGARAN HOUSE, ERAVIMANGALAM P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, NADATHARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.3499, POOCHATTY, NADATHARA P.O., THRISSUR. 2. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.V.G. ARUN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30 /05 /2008 ,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5609 of 2004 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY R2 IN I.F. NO.66/2000 DTD 21.6.2002. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.5609 OF 2004 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT The workman involved in I.D.No.66/2000 before the Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad challenges Ext.P1 award passed by the Industrial Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was; “Whether the dismissal of Sri. M.K. Radhakrishnan, Salesman from the service of Nadathara Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.3499 with effect from 29.7.1998 is justifiable? If not, what relief he is entitled to?” Since the workman was dismissed after conducting an enquiry, the Tribunal considered the validity of the enquiry as a preliminary point and found that the enquiry was conducted validly and properly and findings were also supported by evidence on record. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the validity of the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman and found that the dismissal of the workman was justified and he is not entitled to any relief. W.P.(c)No.5609/04 2 2. The petitioner now challenges the award on the ground that the dismissal was by the Managing Director and as per the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the Managing Director is not the competent authority to issue dismissal order on the petitioner. I have considered the arguments raised by the petitioner in this regard. Assuming that as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules the Managing Director could not have issued the order of punishment of dismissal on the petitioner in so far as the Industrial Tribunal has found him guilty of serious misconducts and that he is liable to punishment of dismissal, the question as to whether who should issue the dismissal order is only a formality and therefore, I am not inclined to set aside the award on that ground exercising my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.5609/04 3