The appellate authority under the Shops Act has concurrent jurisdiction to deal with labor/industrial disputes, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 against the orders/awards of the Authority/Tribunal/Labor Court dealing with labor matters.

Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P1 order dated 27.8.2008 in Appeal No.5/2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 setting aside the punishment and dismissal of the first respondent from service and ordering to reinstate her in service with the benefit of 3/4th of backwages with immediate effect or to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- in lieu of re-employment and backwages within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

2. The first respondent was a Junior Clerk of the petitioner which is a Primary Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. A dispute arose between the petitioner society and the first respondent and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent. An enquiry officer was appointed and a domestic enquiry was conducted. Thereafter the first respondent was dismissed from service on 6.1.2001 with retrospective effect i.e. from the date of suspension. The first respondent society preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short KCS Rules) which was dismissed. The entire proceedings including the domestic enquiry was challenged by the first respondent by filing an appeal under Section 18 of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act before the second respondent. The second respondent by Ext.P1 order allowed the appeal and the petitioners were directed to reinstate the first respondent or to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P1 in this writ petition on various factual as well as legal grounds. The petitioners also challenged the jurisdiction of the second respondent to pass Ext.P1 order in the light of the amendment introduced to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act which came into force with effect from 2.1.2000.

3. The first respondent as well as the second respondent filed separate detailed counter affidavits justifying Ext.P1.

4. The definite stand taken by the respondents is that this Court in the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1734/2004 has held that the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 is applicable to the present case and hence, the contention of the petitioners that Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies has to be applied is unsustainable. It was also contended that the action of the second respondent was in accordance with the powers as contemplated under the Act and Rules.

5. I have heard Mr. N.K. Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K.S. Ajayaghosh, the learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader in the matter.

6. Admittedly, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the first respondent. Altogether 8 charges were levelled against the first respondent of which she was found guilty by the enquiry officer on charge Nos.4, 5 and 6. The enquiry officer found that charge Nos.1 and 2 were proved in part. However, the first respondent was found not guilty of the charge Nos.3, 7 and 8. Against the dismissal of service of the first respondent, she preferred an appeal under Section 198(4) of the Kerala KCS Rules to the Board of Directors of the Society. The appeal was heard by the earlier committee and took a decision on 17.5.2001 which was rescinded by order dated 20.5.2002 of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The first respondent has a case that the appeal ought to have been heard and disposed of by the new committee. Instead, the new committee without affording an opportunity of hearing the first respondent, dismissed the appeal on 29.8.2002 confirming the order of dismissal by the President. The matter was taken again in appeal before the second respondent.

7. It was argued by Mr. N.K. Subramanian, the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishment Rules, the statute only contem