IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2009 / 7TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10461 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.P.CHERIYAKOYA MARIYAPADA HOUSE, KALPENI,LAKSHADWEEP 682 557 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI. 3. PRESIDENT KALPENI ISLAND CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING SOCIETY LTD, NO-LMA 2, KALPENI LAKSHADWEEP ISLAND. 4. THE KALPENI ISLAND CO-OPERATIVE SUPPLY & MARKETING SOCIETY LTD, NO-LMA 2, ADV. SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,SC,LAKSHADWEEP ADMN FOR R1-2 SRI.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ FOR R3 & 4 SRI.MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. A true copy of the order dated 23.2.2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. Ext.P2. A copy of the appeal. Ext.P3. A copy of the order dated 22.5.2008. Ext.P4. A copy of the order dated 10.2.2009. Ext.P5. A copy of the order dated 25.2.2009. Ext.P6. A copy of the representation dated 13.3.2009 // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.10461 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 29th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was a salesman working under the 4th respondent, a Co-operative Society. By Ext.P1 proceedings, the service of the petitioner was terminated. He filed an appeal to the Registrar resulting in Ext.P3 order by which, his termination was set aside and he was ordered to be reinstated in service. Society filed an appeal before the first respondent. By Ext.P4 order, the first respondent set aside Ext.P3 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 2. Accordingly the matter was reconsidered and by Ext.P5 order dated 25.2.2009, the 2nd respondent ordered reinstatement of the petitioner forthwith. The Society was also directed to report compliance of the order within period of 7 days of receipt of the order. Petitioner states that on the strength of Ext.P5, he reported for duty on WP(c).No.10461/09 2 9.3.2009 and that he was not allowed to join duty and thereupon he made Ext.P6 compliant to the 2nd respondent. 3. In this writ petition what the petitioner submits is that despite the finality that Ext.P5 has attained, the 4th respondent has not complied with the directions by reinstating him. On this basis, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext.P5 and take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4. 4. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, standing counsel submits that since Ext.P5 has attained finality, the 4th respondent was bound to have reinstated the petitioner as mentioned therein. It is stated that, in view of the non- implementation of Ext.P5, they already issued a show cause notice on 22.6.2009 calling upon the Society why the committee shall not be superseded and that the proceedings are pending. On behalf of respondents 3 and 4, counsel points out that the Society is contemplating further proceedings against Ext.P5 before the appropriate authorities WP(c).No.10461/09 3 and that it was therefore that the directions were not complied with. 5. Irrespective of the said submission, respondents 3 and 4 have no answer for the default that they have committed in implementing Ext.P5 which, as at present, has attained finality. If that be so, there is absolutely no justification for not reinstating the petitioner. At this stage respondents 3 and 4 have undertaken to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 and 4 that the petitioner shall be reinstated as ordered in Ext.P5 and that he shall be paid backwages from 15th March, 2009 onwards. The undertaking that this shall be done within ten days from today is recorded. It is clarified that in case respondents 3 and 4 initiate any proceedings against Ext.P5 and succeed in getting the order modified, the reinstatement now effected will be subject to such orders. It is also clarified that, it will be open to WP(c).No.10461/09 4 respondents 1 and 2 to proceed further with the show cause notice already issued and this judgment will not affect any such proceedings. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.10461/09 5