Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
Ashamol Mm S/o. Joseph M.J. - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 2106 OF 2023
Decided On : 16-01-2025
Based on the provided legal document, the key legal principles and conclusions are as follows:
Jurisdiction Over Employment Disputes: Disputes concerning employment, including promotions, seniority, and retirement benefits within cooperative societies, are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court after the amendments to Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Registrar's role is limited to administrative oversight and cannot decide substantive employment disputes (!) (!) .
Role of the Registrar Under Rule 176: The Registrar has the authority to rescind resolutions of a society or its committee only in cases where there is a clear violation of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws, or departmental instructions, based on unimpeachable documents. This power is limited to summary examinations and does not extend to adjudicating employment disputes or issues requiring detailed inquiry (!) (!) .
Effect of Legislative Amendments: The amendment to Section 69, effective from 2003, explicitly confers exclusive jurisdiction over service-related disputes to the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The non-obstante clause in Section 69 emphasizes that this jurisdiction overrides any other legal provisions or powers granted to the Registrar under Rule 176, making the latter's authority in employment disputes null in such contexts (!) (!) (!) .
Hierarchy and Harmonization of Provisions: When interpreting the provisions, the specific and detailed nature of Section 69 takes precedence over the general supervisory powers under Rule 176. The legislative intent is to streamline dispute resolution by establishing a dedicated arbitration mechanism for employment disputes, thereby excluding other forums from jurisdiction over such matters (!) (!) .
Judicial Interpretation and Consistency: The legal framework and judicial principles support that disputes related to employment, promotions, and seniority are to be resolved solely by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, and the Registrar's intervention is limited to procedural or administrative violations that do not involve substantive employment rights (!) (!) (!) .
Final Orders: The court has quashed the Registrar's orders and directed the respective societies to compute and release retirement benefits or to refrain from interfering in employment disputes. It has also clarified that the selection process, once completed, does not preclude the aggrieved party from pursuing remedies under the appropriate dispute resolution mechanism provided by Section 69 (!) (!) .
In summary, the legal position emphasizes the primacy of the specific dispute resolution mechanism under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, with the Registrar's powers under Rule 176 being limited to administrative and summary proceedings, and not extending to substantive employment disputes.
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
Disputes regarding employment in cooperative societies must be resolved by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, not by the Registrar, as per the amended Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies....
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.
Service disputes under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be resolved exclusively by the Co-operative Arbitration Court, limiting the Registrar's jurisdiction.
Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act excludes Labour Court jurisdiction over employment disputes, designating the Co-operative Arbitration Court as the exclusive forum for resolution.
The Chief Executive/Secretary of a co-operative society holds a dual statutory character as both an office bearer and an employee. Disputes regarding their removal are not purely private employment m....
The Joint Registrar has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding resolutions of Co-operative Societies, and prior consent by the Society to a process cannot be retracted.
Disciplinary disputes involving co-operative societies must be resolved through the Co-operative Arbitration Court, and recourse to writ jurisdiction is premature when alternative remedies exist.
As per Section 69 of Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969, the dispute is to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar are well defined. Accordingly the Government of Kerala consti....
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 6....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
