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) 51

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

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

Service disputes under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be resolved exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, not by the Registrar, following the amendment to Section 69.

Headnote:(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 69 - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 - Rule 176 - Dispute regarding promotion and retirement benefits - The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his revision petition regarding recovery from retirement benefits, asserting that the Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction under amended Section 69, which mandates that service disputes be resolved by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The court found that the Registrar's powers under Rule 176 do not extend to service disputes post-amendment, affirming that such disputes must be adjudicated exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. (Paras 10, 14, 29)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasized that the amendment to Section 69 clearly delineates the jurisdiction for service disputes, excluding the Registrar's authority under Rule 176 in such matters. (Paras 10, 14)

(C) Legal Fiction - The court noted that the legal fiction created by Section 69(2) must be given full effect, reinforcing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court over employment-related disputes. (Paras 10, 14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having served since 1992 and promoted to Secretary, challenged the recovery of excess salary based on a complaint regarding his qualifications. The Joint Registrar affirmed the recovery order, which the petitioner contested, arguing jurisdictional overreach.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the orders of the Joint Registrar, directing the society to compute and release the retirement benefits due to the petitioner.

Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar post-amendment to Section 69 and the validity of the recovery order against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that service disputes must be resolved by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, not the Registrar, as per the amended Section 69, which excludes such matters from the Registrar's jurisdiction.

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 jurisdiction to en


      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