SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 68

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
Joseph Mathew S/o. Joseph M.J. - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2106 OF 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
FOR THE APPELLANT : ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) ALONG WITH ADVS. M/S. NISHA GEORGE, A.L.NAVANEETH KRISHNAN, ANN MARIA FRANCIS & REGINALD VALSALAN
FOR THE RESPONDENT: SRI. BIMAL NATH K., SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. SRI. SHYAM S. FOR R3

IMPORTANT POINT
Service disputes under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be resolved exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, limiting the Registrar's jurisdiction.

Headnote:

(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 69 - Disputes concerning service matters including promotions and seniority must be addressed exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court post-amendment in 2003, limiting the Registrar's powers under Rule 176. (Paras 10 , 14 , 28 )

(B) Jurisdictional Bar - The Registrar cannot intervene in service disputes, as they are to be resolved by the designated Arbitration Court, ensuring clarity in governance within cooperative societies. (Paras 15 , 27 )

Facts of the case: The petitioner challenged various orders regarding his promotion and retirement benefits, arguing that the Registrar exceeded jurisdiction by addressing service disputes that should be under the Arbitration Court's purview. (Paras 1 , 3 )

Findings of Court: The court quashed the contested orders and directed the society to compute and release retirement benefits due to the petitioner, emphasizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court over service-related disputes. (Paras 29 )

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Registrar had jurisdiction to decide service disputes in light of the amendments to Section 69 of the KCS Act. (Paras 10 , 15 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the amendments to Section 69 explicitly limit the Registrar's authority regarding service matters, affirming the Arbitration Court's exclusive jurisdiction. (Paras 15 , 28 )

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

JUDGMENT

In W.P.(C) No.2106 of 2023, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, that dismissed the revision petition filed by him affirming the order passed by the Joint Registrar ordering the Society to recover an amount of Rs.2,06,937/- from the retirement benefits of the petitioner. An order was passed dated 3.1.2022 against the petitioner’s promotion, which was challenged by him by filing W.P. (C) No. 19979/2022, wherein, by judgment dated 07.07.2022, the said order was set aside and the competent authority of the Government was directed to reconsider the matter. The present impugned order is passed after the direction in the said judgment. It is stated that the petitioner entered into service as a Junior Clerk in the year 1992 and was promoted as Secretary-in-charge and was given the charge on 1.11.2012 and later, promoted as Secretary on 1.4.2014. The promotion was based on decision No.503 taken in the general body meeting of the respondent bank on 31.3.2014. The petitioner submits that though he was eligible to be appointed much earlier, it was being denied due to political reasons. Despite the petitioner being qualified, on the basis of a complaint received, dated 4.8.2017, before the second respondent that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification for being promoted as Secretary and to recover the excess salary paid, the Joint Registrar passed Ext.P1 order on 30.5.2018, aggrieved by which the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Government as Ext.P2. Through Ext.P3 order dated 3.1.2022, the first respondent affirmed the order of the second respondent stating that the dispute under challenge is not a service related one and can be decided by the Joint Registrar and also, held that the promotion granted is against Rule 185(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, ('The KCS Rules' for short) . The petitioner, thus, challenges Ext.P7 and also, seeks a direction to the third respondent to release the amounts deducted from his retirement benefits.

2. In W.P.(C) No.14632 of 2023, the petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order passed by the first respondent, Joint Registrar, invoking Rule 176 of the KCS Rules, rescinding the resolution passed by the Managing Committee of the third respondent, which directed to promote and appoint the petitioner as a Junior Clerk. It is submitted that the first respondent had no jurisdiction at all to invoke the power under Rule 176 as the petitioner was duly qualified and was promoted and the complaint was made three years after the promotion.

3. In W.P.(C) No.24757 of 2023, the writ petition challenges Ext.P1 notification issued by the first respondent Society in attempting to conduct a recruitment process to the post of Secretary in blatant violation of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('The KCS Act' for short) , the KCS Rules and the Circulars made therein. It is submitted that the age, qualification, remuneration and appointment have to be stated in the notification in terms of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules and Ext.P1 paper publication inviting applications mentioned nothing of that sort. The petitioner had, accordingly, made a complaint to the functional Registrar of the first respondent- Society and since no decision was being taken on the complaint, the writ petition was filed for quashing Ext.P1 notification. The interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.24757/2023 dated 27.7.2023 permitting the first respondent to proceed with the selection process pursuant to Ext.P1 but directed that no appointments shall be made. The selection process is already over and the additional 4th respondent has been stated to be selected.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that after the amendment made to Section 69 in Chapter IX, the Co-operative Arbitration Court alone has the jurisdictio


                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top