The court held that excessive costs imposed on claimants in statutory arbitration violate public policy, allowing severability of the cost portion of the award while upholding the dismissal of election disputes.

ORDER :

1. Original Petition No. 385 of 2018 was filed by one K.Sankara Narayanan, one of the Members of the Railway Employees' Cooperative Credit Society Limited (2nd respondent) against the common order dated 26.01.2018 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, a Retired Judge of this Court in A.R.C.No. 1 of 2016 dismissing the claim of the petitioner challenging the election to the Board of Directors while Original Petition in O.P.No. 384 of 2018 was filed by him against the order dated 26.01.2018 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, a Retired Judge of this Court in A.R.C.No. 8 of 2016 dismissing the claim of the petitioner challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent – N.Kanniah as Chairman of the 2nd respondent Society.

2. Similarly, Original Petition No. 387 of 2018 was filed by one G.Sivakumar, another member of the Railway Employees' Cooperative Credit Society Limited (2nd respondent) against the common order dated 26.01.2018 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, a Retired Judge of this Court in A.R.C.No. 2 of 2016, dismissing the claim of the petitioner challenging the election to the Board of Directors while Original Petition in O.P.No. 386 of 2018 was filed by him against the order dated 26.01.2018 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator, a Retired Judge of this Court in A.R.C.No. 7 of 2016 dismissing the claim of the petitioner challenging the appointment of the 3rd respondent – N.Manivannan as the Chief Executive Officer of the 2nd respondent Society.

A.Nos.3649 of 2021 & A.No. 3651 of 2021:

3. Pending original petitions, the sole petitioner in O.P.Nos.385 and 384 of 2018 died on 26.08.2019, hence the sole petitioner-G.Sivakumar came forward with the applications in A.Nos.3649 of 2021 and 3651 of 2021 for substitution of his name in the place of the deceased sole petitioner - K.Sankara Narayanan in O.P.Nos.385 & 384 of 2018. A copy of the death certificate of K.Sankara Narayanan which was downloaded from the official website of the Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply was filed for the perusal of this court.

4. This court has heard both the parties in the applications.

5. Considering the nature of the relief sought for in the applications and the nature of the disputes involved, this court is of the view that question of succession right would not arise as they were only disputes touching upon the election to the 2nd respondent society and the applicant-G.Sivakumar wanted to represent the cause of another member-K.Sankara Narayanan (since deceased). Hence, the applications are allowed. G.Sivakumar is substituted as petitioner in the place of K.Sankara Narayanan in O.P.Nos.385 and 384 of 2018 respectively.

6. Since the issue involved in O.P.Nos.385 & 387 of 2018 is one and the same touching upon the election conducted to the 2nd respondent society and the issue involved in the other two O.P.Nos.384 & 386 of 2018 is with regard to amendment to the Service Regulations of the year 2004 and election of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to the 2nd respondent society, all these original petitions were taken up together for hearing, heard and are being disposed of by this common order.

7. The brief facts leading to the filing of these original petitions are as under:

(a) Disputes with regard to conduct of election to the society governed by the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 [for short, “the MSCS Act, 2002”] was referred to the Sole Arbitrator. The election was mainly challenged on the ground that any election process should begin with the election of the Representatives General Body (for short “the RGB Members”), then, RGB members should elect the Board of Directors and then, the Board of Directors should elect the Executive Committee of the Office Bearers i.e., the Chairman and Vice-chairman which would administer the society and oversee the day-today functioning of the society.

(b) The main dispute originally raised by two of the members of the 2nd respondent society is with regard to c