Important points:
The term 'any' preceding 'dispute' and 'including' appearing in Section 69(2)(d) of the Act are really eye openers. Those usages expand the scope of the dispute provided in Section 69(2).

JUDGMENT :

Haripal, J.

This is the tail-piece of a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the 1st respondent way-back in 1984 which culminated in his demotion to a lower cadre; ultimately, after playing a long 'snake and ladder' game, matters ended in his favour by the Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2016. By the time he had already retired from service on 30.09.2007; thereafter he moved the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', read with Rule 67 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, seeking certain reliefs. The appellant, who is the respondent in the Arbitration Case, challenged the maintainability of the proceedings. The 2nd respondent, the Arbitration Court dismissed that application and found the case maintainable, against which the appellant moved this Court with W.P(C) No.1029/2020. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment, which has been called in question before this Court under Section 5 of the High Court Act.

2. We heard Sri. P.U. Shylajan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Jawahar Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, in detail.

3. Before adverting to the arguments, it would be advantageous to state in brief the sequence of events that led to the filing of this appeal. The 1st respondent had started his career in the appellant Bank as a last grade employee who ascended the ladder of service; while working as Senior Clerk, he was promoted to the post of Accountant, a cadre equivalent to the post of Internal Auditor, on 01.08.1984. Thereafter, on the allegation of misconduct and dereliction of duty, a punishment of demotion as Senior Clerk was imposed on him with effect from 15.02.1985, besides his promotion from the demoted post was barred for a period of two years. He preferred an appeal before the managing committee, which allowed the appeal in part and set aside the punishment of barring of promotion for two years. Against the order of demotion he filed ARC No.340/84-85 which was dismissed by the Joint Registrar. Against that dismissal an appeal was preferred before the Government; allowing the appeal the matter was remanded to the Joint Registrar for fresh disposal. Against that decision the 1st respondent moved the Cooperative Tribunal as A.P. No.123/1993. Meanwhile the Administrator who was in power promoted the 1st respondent to the post of Accountant with effect from 01.07.1993. The Co-operative Tribunal set aside the order of the Joint Registrar and remanded the matter to the Joint Registrar for fresh disposal. By the time, consequent to the amendment that led to the incorporation of Section 69(2) in the Act, the matter was transferred to the Co-operative Arbitration Court. Meanwhile the 1st respondent retired on superannuation on 30.09.2007. On 27.08.2012 the Arbitration Court set aside the punishment imposed on him and held that he is entitled to get all consequential benefits including backwages, to which he is entitled in the normal course as if he had been in service at all point of time. Ultimately, by Ext.P4 judgment of this Court dated 12.01.2016 that finding has been given a quietus. Later the 1st respondent moved the 2nd respondent with ARC No.22/2017 claiming that, had he been not demoted, he would have been promoted as Chief Accountant/Manager/Assistant Secretary, which are all posts of the same cadre with effect from 01.11.1993. He moved for backwages for the period from 15.02.1985, the date on which he was demoted as Senior Clerk, till 30.06.1993, that is the period he remained in the demoted cadre. Earlier, backwages were partially paid and he moved Ext.P1 claim amended by Ext.P6 before the 2nd respondent seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) determining the balance amount due to the plaintiff from the defendant at Rs.282191/- or any such amount this Honourable court finds as correctly due;

(b) directing the defendant t