V. Chitambaresh, J.

1. Can the Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 force an employer society to retain the services of an employee whom it no longer wishes to employ?

2. The dismissal from service of the appellant for charges of misappropriation, forgery, misconduct etc., was set aside by Ext.P12 award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court (‘the Court’ for short). The appellant was directed to be reinstated in the service of the first respondent Co-operative Bank which was affirmed by Ext.P15 judgment of the Co-operative Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’ for short). But the direction to reinstate the appellant in service was set aside in the Writ Petition filed by the Co-operative Bank even after finding that the charges were not proved. The case was remitted to the Tribunal solely to fix the compensation payable in lieu of reinstatement of the appellant in service which has given rise to this Writ Appeal.

3. We heard Mr.N.Sukumaran, Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellant, Mr. N.K.Subramanian, Advocate on behalf of the first respondent and Mrs.K.R.Deepa, Senior Government Pleader at length.

4. The appellant relied on the following observations of Mr. Justice P.N. Ravindran in Cheranallur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2012 (3) KHC 834) as regards the jurisdiction to order reinstatement:

“If the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act can order reinstatement in service of a workman who is governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, I find nothing wrong in the Co-operative Arbitration Court directing reinstatement in service. That apart, under S.100 of the Act, the jurisdiction of a civil or Revenue Court is barred only in respect of any matter for which any provision is made in the Act. S.69 of the Act makes a provision for adjudication of disputes in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of co-operative societies, which as held by this Court could take in disputes arising under disciplinary proceedings also. Therefore, merely because S.100 bars the jurisdiction of a civil Court in respect of matters for which provision has been made in the Act, it cannot be said that the Co-operative Arbitration Court could not have entertained the dispute. In the absence of a challenge by the petitioner to the constitutional validity of sub-s.(2) of S.69 of the Act, the contention that the Co-operative Arbitration Court cannot order reinstatement, is liable to be rejected.” (emphasis supplied)

The contention in short of the appellant is that a remand of the case to the Tribunal to fix compensation is unwarranted especially when the findings in Ext.P12 award and Ext.P15 judgment as regards the delinquency stand affirmed.

5. A Division Bench of this Court in Kaloor Vadakkummury Service Co-operative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Registrar, Mukundapuram and Others (1973 KLT 523) had occasion to observe in this regard as follows:

“For the same reasoning, the powers of the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent, functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, are unaffected by the powers of the Registrar under S.69 of the Act. The dispute that was resolved by the 2nd respondent by passing Ext.P5 award could not have been dealt with by the Registrar. He was not competent to deal with that question. He could not grant the relief of reinstatement which has been granted by the 2nd respondent.” (emphasis supplied)

Again it was held in Sankaran v. Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies (1975 KLT 861) that ‘the Court will not ordinarily force an employer to retain the services of an employee whom he no longer wishes to employ’. Still later another Division Bench of this Court in Trivandrum Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (2001(1) KLT 99) held as follows:

“The jurisdiction of the Registrar under S.69 of the Act is co-terminus with that of the civil Court. T