Point of Law: Under Sec.2A without much delay, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of said application.

JUDGMENT :

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

The appellant herein has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C).No.19205/2012 before this Court with the following prayers:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P8 Order dated 10.1.2019 of the 6th respondent and P9 Order of the 5th respondent Administrative Board dated 24.4.2019.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P16 Order of the 2nd respondent.

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or the other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 to 3 to refer the matter to the competent Court under the Industrial Dispute Act to settle the issue with respect to the dismissal of an employee from the Society.

(iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or the other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th and 5th respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in Service in the event of quashing Exhibit P8 and P9 and to award compensation in view of reinstatement on the basis of back wages and all allowances eligible to petitioner.

(v) Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned judgment on 16.9.2021 dismissing the above WP(C) with the finding that the writ petitioner has already approached the Arbitration Reference Court by filing Arbitration Reference Case A.R.C.No.27/2018 to challenge Ext.P-8 dismissal order as stated in Ext.P-16 order dated 9.6.2021 issued by the respondent State Government in the Labour Department, and therefore it is for the writ petitioner to take resort to further proceedings in that arbitration reference case before the Arbitration Reference Court in accordance with the provisions contained in the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge on 16.9.2021 in the above WP(C), the writ petitioner has filed the instant intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

3. Heard Sri.R.Sudhish, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant/writ petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 3 in W.A./WP(C). Though, notices are duly served on contesting respondents 4 to 6 in the W.A. (R-4 to R-6 in the WP(C)), there is no appearance of those parties.

4. A brief reference to the factual details of this case would be pertinent. The writ appellant/writ petitioner had entered service of the 4th respondent Co-operative Society as Junior Clerk on 9.12.2011 and thereafter she was duly promoted as Senior Clerk, and later she was ordered to be kept out of duty/suspended from service for a period of 3 months from 14.5.2018 in respect of certain allegations raised against her. The appellant then preferred Ext.P-18 Arbitration Reference Case A.R.C.No.27/2018 on 23.6.2018 before the State Arbitration Court, Kozhikode, in accordance with the provisions contained in Sec.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies, Act, 1969, to challenge said order of the 4th respondent keeping her out of duty. Later, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her by issuance of memo of charges on 16.8.2018, which ultimately led to the issuance of Ext.P-8 order dated 10.1.2019 issued by the Disciplinary Sub Committee of the 4th respondent, whereby the appellant has been ordered to be dismissed from service of the 4th respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant had preferred a statutory appeal in terms of Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the competent authority and the appellate authority has dismissed said appeal as per Ext.P-9 appellate order dated 24.9.2019, thus confirming Ext.P-8 dismissal order. Being aggrieved by Ext.P-8 dismissal order as confirmed by Ext.P-9 appellate order, the appellant had approached the 3rd responden