In this original petition, the petitioner, an employee of the 1st respondent Co-operative Society, challenges Ext.P2 award of the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad, by which the Tribunal upheld the punishment of dismissal from service, imposed on the petitioner by the 1st respondent, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are as under.

2. In 1987, the Society was under the management of an administrator appointed under Section 32 of the Kerala co-operative Societies Act, 1969. From 1970 onwards, the petitioner was holding temporary charge of the post of Secretary of the Society. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on 51 charges of misconduct in 1987. A domestic enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner was found guilty. Accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, the administrator imposed on the petitioner the punishment of dismissal from service. The Kerala Co-operative Employees Front, the Union espousing the cause of the petitioner, raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the 2nd respondent Industrial Tribunal. The 2nd respondent adjudicated the same as I.D.No.5 of 1994. The Tribunal considered two issues as preliminary issues. The first was one raised by the management, namely whether the petitioner, being the Secretary of the Society, working in a managerial and supervisory capacity, is a workman as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act. The second was raised by the Union regarding the validity of the enquiry. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was a workman and that the enquiry was invalid for violation of principles of natural justice. Thereafter, the management Society was granted opportunity to adduce evidence to prove the charges. Both sides adduced evidence. After considering the evidence, the Tribunal found that 19 out of the 51 charges were proved and since in view of the misconducts proved against the petitioner, the management lost confidence in the petitioner, it cannot be held that the punishment of dismissal is excessive or disproportionate to the gravity of the misconducts proved against the petitioner warranting interference under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Ext.P2 is the award passed by the Tribunal, which is under challenge in this original petition.

3. I have heard counsel on both sides elaborately.

4. Counsel for the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 award on the following grounds:

(a) The administrator had no jurisdiction to dismiss the petitioner from service.

(b) The punishment imposed by the administrator being in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, is void ab initio and the whole disciplinary proceedings ought to be set aside on that ground alone.

(c) The findings of the Tribunal on the 19 charges are perverse and unsustainable.

(d) The petitioner was victimized on account of the fight between two factions in the Society which was the motive for initiating the disciplinary action.

(e) The Tribunal entered the finding of loss of confidence without any pleading or material on record.

(f) The punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and disproportionate.

5. I shall deal with the first two contentions together. The first contention is regarding lack of jurisdiction and second regarding violation of Rule 198. These contentions necessarily relate to the fact that the Society was under the management of the administrator. The contention regarding jurisdiction of the administrator is based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Hassan v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, reported in 1998 (2) KLT 746, holding that the power of the administrator under Section 33(2) of the Act does not take in the power to enroll new members to the Society. Counsel argues that the jurisdiction to dismiss an employee is analogous to the jurisdiction to enroll new members, which