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) 886

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM 
D.K. SINGH, J.
Thomas James S/o James - Petitioner
Versus
The Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies [General] Kottayam - Respondent
WP (C) Nos. 29882, 5944 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. ARUN CHANDRAN; HARIMOHAN AMRITA ARUN; ASWATHY S MENON
For the Respondent: BY ADVS. Nisha George; GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)(K/000570/1979) SRI A L NAVANEETH KRISHNAN; BIMAL K. NATH-SR.GP

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 69(2)(d) - Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules - Rule 176 - Termination of service - Employee's voluntary retirement accepted by Society, challenged in court - Division Bench found resolution illegal, allowing employee to file application under Rule 176 to rescind it - Society's argument of lack of jurisdiction rejected as it had previously consented to the process. (Paras 2 .2, 10, 10.1, 10.2)

(B) Jurisdiction of Joint Registrar - The Joint Registrar has the authority to adjudicate disputes regarding the validity of resolutions passed by the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society, independent of the provisions of Section 69(2)(d). (Paras 10 , 10 .2)

Facts of the case:

The employee, an Accountant at the Kappumthala Service Co-operative Bank, challenged the acceptance of his voluntary retirement and subsequent termination. The Division Bench noted the lack of a formal application for voluntary retirement and suggested the employee file under Rule 176 to rescind the resolution. (Paras 2 .1, 2.4)

Findings of Court:

The resolution accepting the voluntary retirement was set aside by the Joint Registrar, a decision upheld by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The Society's writ petition challenging these decisions was dismissed. (Paras 10 , 11 )

Issues: Whether the Society can contest the Joint Registrar's jurisdiction after previously consenting to the process and whether the resolution was a service dispute under Section 69(2)(d). (Paras 9 , 10 .2)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Society cannot retract its agreement to allow the employee to file under Rule 176, and the Division Bench's decision regarding the resolution's validity is final and unchallenged. (Paras 10 .1, 10.2)

Result: W.P.

(C) No.5944/2024 dismissed; W.P.

(C) No.29882/2024 allowed, directing the Society to pay all eligible benefits to the employee. (Paras 11 , 11 .1)

JUDGMENT :

[WP(C) Nos.29882/2024, 5944/2024]

1. Heard Mr A L Navaneeth Krishnan learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5944/2024; Mr Arun Chandran learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29882/2024 who appeared for the respondent also in the respective petitions; and Mr Bimal K Nath learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State.

Facts

2. The employee, who is the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.5944/2024 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29882/2024, was working as an Accountant in the Kappumthala Service Co-operative Bank. Against the Resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society dated 19.01.2017, whereby the employee’s request for voluntary retirement was accepted and his services stood terminated with effect from 24.01.2017, filed a writ petition before this Court impugning the said decision/Resolution of the Society.

2.1 The learned Single Bench of this Court dismissed W.P.(C) No.12463/2017 vide judgment dated 19.03.2021, with liberty to the petitioner/employee to avail of the statutory alternative remedy under Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969.

2.2 The said judgment came to be challenged by the petitioner/employee in W.A. No.614/2021. The Division Bench of this Court held that the writ petition was filed not only against the order dated 24.01.2017 issued by the Kappumthala Service Co-operative Bank, retiring the petitioner from service, but also against the proceedings in the domain of disciplinary nature. As the petitioner was not challenging the disciplinary proceedings, the whole challenge was only in respect of the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 whereby the Managing Committee decided to accept the alleged voluntary retirement application of the petitioner and retire him from service. The Division Bench was of the view that the proceeding dated 24.01.2017 was only a reflection of the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society in respect of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 19.07.2017. The Division Bench, therefore, was of the view that the dispute was not in respect of the service which would come within the ambit of Section 69(2)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act.

2.3 The Division Bench also held that the letter addressed by the petitioner/employee was under a fit of emotion inasmuch as he was not being permitted to sign the acquittance register of the Society. Further, the Division Bench also held that it would not be proper to enter into the correctness of the factual case of the petitioner/employee as to whether he had been deliberately denied permission to sign the acquittance register or not. However, the pleading and materials pointed out by both sides would indicate that there was a serious difference of opinion between the petitioner/employee and the authorities of the Society. It was also said that no formal application for voluntary retirement as required under the Rules was submitted by the petitioner/employee and due to emotional turmoil and other issues, the petitioner/employee would have taken the stand that he should be permitted to sign the acquittance register, failing which he should be granted terminal benefits.

2.4 The Division Bench noted that it was not the case of the employer/Society that despite the permission granted to sign the acquittance register, the petitioner/employee, without any valid reason, did not sign the acquittance register. In view of the aforesaid, the Division Bench, prima facie, held the manner in which the decision dated 19.01.2017 was taken to accept the voluntary retirement request of the petitioner and terminate his service did not appear to be a proper and reasonable exercise of power by the employer/Society.

2.5 The Division Bench, therefore, suggested to both sides that the petitioner/employee should be permitted to file a formal application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the Joint Registrar seeking to rescind the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 take

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