1. Thethird respondent invoked Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”, for decision of the dispute, between him and his employer, the second petitioner, a co-operative bank, on account of his dismissal from service. The bank raised a preliminary objection that dismissal is not a matter that would fall under Section 69(1) and no question of reinstatement in service can be considered by the Arbitrator. That plea was turned down. This writ petition if filed by the bank and its Board of Directors challenging that decision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that sub-section (1) of Section 69 read with subsection (2) of that section does not bring a dispute relatable to dismissal and a claim for reinstatement, within the purview of the term “dispute”, for the purpose of that provision. The contention is that Section 69(2)(d) has been couched in such a way that it cannot include a dispute touching dismissal or reinstatement. It is argued that specific inclusion of the words “including their promotion and inter se seniority” in section 69(2)(d) is sufficient legislative material to conclude that the disputes envisaged by Section 69(2)(d) include only disputes in connection with employment excluding appointment, dismissal etc.; otherwise, there need to have been any such specific inclusion.

3. Section 69(1)(c) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises, between the society and any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee, such dispute shall be referred to the co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes and the Arbitration Court, or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such dispute and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Section 69(2)(d) provides that any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Section 80, including their promotion and inter se seniority, shall also be deemed to be disputes, for the purposes of section 69(1). A dispute regarding disciplinary proceedings and punishment, including an order of dismissal is a dispute arising in connection with that employment since dismissal is a mode of termination of employment and the reliefs that could be granted to a person aggrieved by dismissal, are matters referable to the employment of the officer or the servant in question. Therefore, a dispute relating to the dismissal of an employee of a co-operative society and who thereby becomes a past employee is a matter that falls within the purview of disputes which are to be decided by the Co-operative Arbitration Court in terms of Section 69(1) of the Act.

4. Now, I shall consider the argument regarding the inclusion of the words “including their promotion and inter se seniority” in section 69 (2)(d) of the Act.

5. Sub-section (2) of Section 69 opens with a deeming, which is a legislative device applied to create a legal fiction; to give a term a particular meaning by the application of such deeming provision. It is settled law that where a legal fiction is created, full effect must be given to it and it should be carried to its logical end. – Boucher Pierre Andre v. Superintendent, Central Jail (AIR 1975 SC 164). In construing and applying a deeming provision, the limits of that deeming provision have to be determined and within those limits, the situation that is to be deemed has to be permitted to flow freely. While a fiction cannot be extended beyond its legitimate field, it must be extended beyond its legitimate field, it must be allowed full operation within its intended sphere – Ali v. Kunjannamma (1975 KLT 527).

6. So understood, the legis