The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction does not extend to re-evaluating factual findings of the Tribunal unless there is a manifest error or jurisdictional flaw.

JUDGMENT :

(SYAM KUMAR V.M.,  J.)

Since the parties to these Writ Petitions and the subject matter involved are the same, they are considered and disposed of together.

2. Petitioner is an apex Co-operative Society as defined under Section 2(a) of the Co-operative Societies Act. The 3^rd respondent while working as Manager of the Bank at its office at Thrissur was charged of serious financial improprieties and other lapses. Since the reply submitted by him was not found satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted. On the basis of the report submitted therein, the 3^rd respondent was dismissed from service by the order dated 17.09.2008. He preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors, which was dismissed by an order dated 19.01.2009. The 3^rd respondent then filed ARC No.84 of 2011 (Old No.55 of 2009) before the Co-operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode (Ext.P1) inter alia seeking to set aside the domestic enquiry report and to reinstate him in service with full back wages. The Bank filed Ext.P2 written statement in the ARC. The Arbitration Court vide Ext.P3 order dated 06.02.2014 set aside the suspension as well as dismissal of the 3^rd respondent and directed him to be reinstated in service if not already superannuated. However, the prayer for back wages was rejected. The 3^rd respondent challenged Ext.P3 order to the extent it declined him back wages before the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by filing Appeal No.37 of 2014. The Tribunal vide Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.10.2014 allowed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Arbitration Court setting aside the domestic enquiry report and order of suspension and dismissal. As regards the question of entitlement of the 3^rd respondent to back wages, the Tribunal remanded back the said question to the Arbitration Court for fresh consideration. In the meanwhile, the Bank had preferred a Revision Petition numbered as R.P.No.59 of 2014 before the Tribunal challenging Ext.P3 order dated 06.02.2014 of the Arbitration Court. The said R.P. was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order on 13.11.2014 terming the same as time barred. The petitioner Bank has preferred both the above Writ Petitions seeking to set aside the above mentioned two orders of the Co-operative Tribunal. While W.P.(C) No.3655 of 2015 is filed by the Bank seeking to quash Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.10.2014 of the Tribunal remanding the question of entitlement to back wages for fresh consideration to the Arbitration Court, the other Writ Petition viz., W.P.(C) No.3684 of 2015 is filed by the Bank seeking to quash Ext.P4 order dated 13.11.2014 of the Tribunal dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the Bank.

3. Heard Sri.Gilbert George Correya, Advocate for the petitioner Bank and Sri.Shaji Thomas, Advocate, for the 3^rd respondent.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank contended that the Tribunal erred in rendering Ext.P4 judgment dated 28.10.2014 in the appeal filed by the 3^rd respondent on the erroneous assumption that the petitioner Bank had not challenged Ext.P3 order dated 06.02.2014 rendered by the Arbitration Court by filing an appeal or revision. He contended that the petitioner Bank had indeed challenged Ext.P3 order of the Arbitration Court by filing a revision, namely Revision Petition No.59 of 2014, before the very same Tribunal. It is contended by the learned counsel that on 28.10.2014, when Ext.P4 judgment was rendered by the Tribunal in the appeal preferred by the 3^rd respondent, the above said Revision Petition had already been heard by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was aware of the fact that both the appeal and revision were pending before it. Hence both the matters ought to have been heard together. The learned counsel proceed to substantiate this contention by pointing to the order in Revision Petition No.59 of 2014, which has been produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.(C) No.3684 of 2015 which states that the revision petition wa