The court declined jurisdiction when the lack of jurisdiction was not raised before the authority or the tribunal, and the exercise of a writ jurisdiction being discretionary in nature, the court must exercise its discretion against those who take the chance of a decision and were not diligent enough to urge the lack of jurisdiction before the Tribunal or authority itself.

Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Kerala Co-operative Societies Act - S.69 - Summary
Fact of the Case:

The Trivandrum Co-operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. appealed to set aside two awards and an appellate decision passed under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, related to the termination of services and financial claims.
Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the appeal, stating that no grounds warranted interference with the concurrent findings of fact entered by the Arbitrator and the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The lack of jurisdiction of the first respondent was not patent, and the appellant had precluded himself from raising it.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of jurisdiction of the first respondent to decide the disputes, which the appellant had not raised before the first respondent or the second respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court declined jurisdiction when the lack of jurisdiction was not raised before the authority or the tribunal, and the exercise of a writ jurisdiction being discretionary in nature, the court must exercise its discretion against those who take the chance of a decision and were not diligent enough to urge the lack of jurisdiction before the Tribunal or authority itself.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and directed the parties to bear their respective costs.

Judgment :-

1. This appeal is by the Trivandrum Co-operative District Wholesale Society Ltd. registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, for short the Act. The appellant sought setting aside the two awards Exts. P1 and P2 passed by the first respondent purporting to act under S.69 of the Act as well as the appellate decision by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum, the second respondent (Ext, P3). The award Ext. P1 was passed on the complaint of respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 that their services had been wrongly terminated by the appellant. The award Ext. P2 related to the same matter. The appellant had claimed certain amounts from each of the respondents 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 on the ground that they bad falsified accounts and had committed misappropriation and criminal breach of trust. This claim of the appellant had been rejected. The appeal taken by the appellant before the second respondent the Co-operative Tribunal was dismissed by Ext. P3.

2. The learned judge who heard the original petition dismissed it by a short judgment reading as follows:

"No grounds are made out warranting any interference by this Court under Art.226 or 227 of the Constitution with the concurrent findings of fact entered by the Arbitrator who decided the reference under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal that the petitioner Society had failed to prove by any acceptable evidence that respondents No. 3 to 7 were responsible for the theft of some Terelene cloth which took place from the Society's shop on 27-9-1969.

Dismissed."

3. The appellant had taken the incontention in the original petition that the first respondent had no jurisdiction to decide the questions that arose before the first respondent on the "plaints" that were filed before the first respondent. The contention was that the disputes that could be settled under S.69 of the Act must relate to a matter touching the business, constitution, establishment or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation. This contention was elaborated by saying that the matter in dispute between the appellant and the respondents 3 onwards was not one which could be the subject of litigation in ordinary civil courts, that the disputes in essence and in substance were industrial disputes. Such a contention had not been taken before the first respondent. In fact the appellant also had invited the decision of the first respondent by the plaint that it filed. It is averred in the original petition that such a contention was raised before the Tribunal, the second respondent; but this also does not appear from the records and the point was not elaborated at the time of arguments. The Tribunal did not consider the question. In the original petition the point has been taken; but the learned judge has not dealt with it. The only point urged before us was the lack of jurisdiction of the first respondent to deal with the disputes that arose.

4. We shall read S.69 as will as the definition of the term'dispute' in S.2 (i) of the Act.

"69. Disputes to be referred to Registrar. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises

(a) among members, past members and persons claiming through members, past members and deceased members; or

(b) between a member, past member or person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member and the society, its committee or any officer, agent or employee of the society; or

(c) between the society or its committee and any past committee, any past committee, any officer, agent or employee, or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent, or deceased agent, or deceased employee of the society; or

(d) between the society and any other society; or

(e) between a society and the members of a society affiliated to it; or

(f) between the society and a person other than a member

Click Here to Read the rest of this document