Point of law : Co-operative Arbitration Court will have discretion to order for reinstatement where the impugned action is in contravention of the statutory mandate, is correct and tenable.

ORDER :

Alexander Thomas, J.

The above matters have been placed before this Full Bench on the basis of an order dated 25.06.2020, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, referring some of the cases to the Full Bench, which in turn, was on the basis of an order dated 06.11.2019, rendered by the learned Single Judge, in some of those cases. As per the afore order dated 06.11.2019, the learned Single Judge has taken the view that the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, in the case in Ambika v. Kottappady Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2018 (3) KLT 779 (DB)], requires reconsideration and that the proposition laid down in Ambika’s case supra [2018 (3) KLT 779 (DB)] is doubted and after citing various decisions therein, more particularly, the decision of the Apex Court in the case in State Bank of India (SBI) & Ors v. S.N. Goyal [2008 (8) SCC 92], the learned Single Judge has doubted the correctness of the proposition rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Ambika’s case supra [2018 (3) KLT 779 (DB)].

2. The Division Bench, as per the afore order dated 25.06.2020, has noted that the afore view taken by the learned Single Judge is that, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in S.N.Goyal's case supra [2008 (8) SCC 92], the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Ambika’s case supra [2018 (3) KLT 779 (DB)] requires reconsideration and therefore, opined that, being a bench of co-equal strength, it is only befitting to have an authoritative pronouncement on the issue by a larger bench. It is on that basis that the reference has been placed before this Full Bench for solving the above said issue.

3. The Division Bench of this Court in Ambika’s case supra [2018 (3) KLT 779 (DB)], after placing reliance on paragraphs 9 and 10 of the decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Co-operative Housing Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange [2017(5) SCC 623], has taken the view that, since the Registrar/Co-operative Arbitration Court, whose jurisdiction is coterminous with that of the Civil Court, cannot specifically enforce a contract of personal service, which is barred under Sec.14(c) read with Sec. 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and that therefore, the order of such an adjudicatory forum, ordering the reinstatement in service of a dismissed employee of a Co-operative society, would amount to specifically enforcing a contract of personal service, which cannot be granted by the court. Whereas, Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for the reinstatement of the workman, on such terms and conditions as stipulated and that such a power is wholly absent for the Civil Court, etc. We are essentially called upon to decide on the correctness or otherwise of the above said dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Ambika’s case supra [2018 (3) KLT 779 (DB)] as to whether the Co-operative Arbitration Court, which is an adjudicatory body under Sec.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (‘KCS Act’ for short), has the power to order reinstatement of an employee, who has been terminated from service for misconduct, etc.

4. At the outset, it has to be noted that the subject matter of consideration of the decision of the Apex Court in Prabhakar Sitaram's case supra [2017(5) SCC 623] was as to whether the adjudicatory forum viz., the notified Registrar, constituted in terms of Sec.91 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act, for resolving disputes, has the power to entertain service disputes of employees of co-operative societies, as per the provisions of the said Acts and Rules framed thereunder and for consideration of reliefs, including reinstatement in service, etc. Para 4 of the decision in Prabhakar Sitaram’s case supra has extracted the provision contained in Sec.91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative So