The issue arising in this case is whether the Joint Registrar can, in exercise of his power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as `the Rules' for short), interfere with the disciplinary action against an employee of a Co-operative Bank when there is a specific forum provided under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short).

2. The petitioner is a Co-operative Bank registered under the Act. The 2nd respondent was employed on contract basis as a collection agent since March, 1997. The case of the petitioner is that, on receipt of complaints against the 2nd respondent by the Managing Committee, an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Committee and based on Ext.P2 report of that Sub Committee, the 2nd respondent was removed from service on 2.5.2011 as per Ext.P5 order after issuing a memo Ext.P3 to which the 2nd respondent filed a reply Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, the procedure for removal provided under Rule 198 of the Rules is not applicable to casual/contract employees. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the Joint Registrar seeking his intervention to reinstate him in service. Thereupon the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued a notice Ext.P8 dated 19.09.2011 directing the bank to appear before the Joint Registrar and to offer its explanation against the proposal to cancel its resolution removing the 2nd respondent from service. It was stated therein that immediately after the 2nd respondent's removal, 3 fresh hands were engaged on provisional basis as collection agents and the removal of the 2nd respondent from service was ordered without conducting a domestic enquiry. This Writ Petition was filed at that stage.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies does not have any jurisdiction to enter into the validity of removal from service of its employees once Arbitration Courts were constituted under Section 70A of the Act and when Section 69(2)(d) provides that, any dispute in connection with employment of servants of Co-operative Societies have to be decided by the Arbitration Courts only. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Prakasini v. Joint Registrar [2006(1) KLT 199] approved in Ravindran v. State of Kerala [(2007) 3 KLT 558] and submitted that there is an implied ouster of jurisdiction in this matter for the Joint Registrar to take action under Rule 176.

4. But according to the 2nd respondent, operation of Rule 176 of the Rules is not restricted even after Arbitration Courts are established under Section 70A of the Act. According to him, he is a contract employee and his removal was ordered without any reason and without conducting any enquiry; the authority of the Registrar is not taken away by way of amendment to the Act; the decisions relied on by the petitioner bank relates to complex issues of inter se seniority of employees of Co-operative Societies and cannot be relied on in a case like this where the 2nd respondent's complaint was against his removal in violation of Rules and without even giving him an opportunity of hearing. On receipt of his complaint, the Joint Registrar had deputed a Unit Inspector to look into his complaint and it was after obtaining the report from him that, the Joint Registrar issued the show cause notice. It was also stated that, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the show cause notice and hence the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

5. The 1st respondent has also filed a counter affidavit justifying the action of the Joint Registrar in issuing the show cause notice stating that, removal was ordered without conducting any enquiry, that too after obtaining a report, and the 1st respondent had only issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner bank. Further it is stated that, the Co-operative Arbitration Court cannot deal with a d