Kurian Joseph, J.

In the matter of disciplinary proceedings against an employee of a cooperative society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Act') once the Registrar exercises his power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the KCS Rules'), is it open to the aggrieved employee to take recourse to the remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.D. Act') is essentially the question referred to the Full Bench. To pose a general question, is an employee subjected to disciplinary proceedings entitled to have his grievance adjudicated before an authority, Forum, Tribunal or Court, which is independent of the executive?

2. The appeal is at the instance of the employee who is the third respondent in the writ petition filed by the society. The society challenged the reference order passed by the Government under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, referring the dispute for adjudication before the Industrial Tribunal. The question referred is "Whether the dismissal of Smt.M.V.Sherly by the Management of Parappuram Milk Producers Cooperative Society Ltd., is legal and justifiable?" Ext.P1 is the reference order. Ext.P4 is the preliminary order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Alappuzha wherein it has been held that the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman is "void and unsustainable". Since the management had not sought for fresh opportunity to prove the charges, the consequential Ext.P5 award was passed setting aside the dismissal and ordering reinstatement with 50% of the back wages. Exts.P1, P4 and P5 orders are under challenge at the instance of the society.

3. The learned Single Judge framed the following issues for consideration.

"(i) Is the initiation of proceedings under the I.D. Act, after the Deputy Director had rejected the application of the delinquent, is within authority?

(ii) Is the impugned Ext.P4 preliminary order is contrary to the findings in the inter-partis judgment in W.A.No.898 of 1998?

(iii) Whether the Industrial Tribunal has the jurisdiction to decide the question of dismissal and reinstatement, in view of Section 7 read with Second Schedule to the I.D.Act?

(iv) In passing the impugned Ext.P5 award, did the Industrial Tribunal act in excess of jurisdiction under Section 11A of the I.D. Act?"

4. On the first issue, it was held by the learned Single Judge that ....."the delinquent, having obtained an adverse decision at the hands of the Deputy Director on his statutory petition under Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as the KCS Rules), is not entitled to have the said issue re-opened before any other forum". On the second issue, it was held that the reliance of the Tribunal on the direction in O.P.No.22912/97 to conduct a fresh enquiry was wrong since the judgment had already been set aside by the Division Bench. Regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in view of Section 7A(1) of the I.D.Act, it was held that Industrial Tribunals have jurisdiction to adjudicate on disputes relating to any matter whether specified in the Second Schedule or in the Third Schedule and on the fourth issue, learned Single Judge was of the view that exercise of power under Section 11A of the I.D. Act was justified. However, no relief was granted to the employee in view of the finding on issue No.1 that the Deputy Director having looked into the matter, it was not open to the employee to take recourse to the remedies under the I.D. Act.

5. The issue cannot be fully comprehended unless a little more reference is made to the history of the case. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee who was at the relevant time working as Milk Tester under the respondent cooperative society on 25.8.1996. She was in continuous service on a permanent basis since 1990. The disciplinary authority decided