The Co-operative Arbitration Court has jurisdiction to order reinstatement if dismissal contravenes statutory mandates, and there is no absolute right to legal representation in domestic inquiries unless specified by rules.

JUDGMENT The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act , 1969, has filed the captioned writ petition, challenging Ext.P2 Award issued by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and Ext.P3 judgment passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, by which, the 1 st respondent herein was ordered to be reinstated in the service of the petitioner.

2. The 1 st respondent herein was working as an attender in the petitioner society. Alleging certain acts of misbehavior/bad conduct/disobedience, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Ext.P1 is the report of the domestic enquiry submitted by the Domestic Enquiry Officer finding that 1 st respondent is guilty of the various charges framed against him. On the basis of the afore, though the disciplinary authority sought for explanations, the 1 st respondent did not give any reply nor attend the personal hearing offered to him. Hence the disciplinary authority issued an order of dismissal as against the 1 st respondent herein. The appeal filed against that order was also rejected. In such circumstances, the 1 st respondent approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court, and by Ext.P2, the punishment imposed on the 1 st respondent was found to be not justified, on account of which, he was ordered to be reinstated. The petitioner challenged Ext.P2 by filing an appeal before the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal, which stood rejected by Ext.P3.

3. It is in the afore circumstances that the captioned writ petition is filed by the petitioner, challenging Exts.P2 and P3.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent herein.

5. It is seen that the 1 st respondent is ordered to be reinstated mainly on account of the refusal to permit him to engage a counsel to defend him before the Enquiry Officer. In this connection, the Apex Court in National Seed Corporation Ltd. v. K.V. Rama Reddy [ (2006) 11 SCC 645 ] has held as under; “7. The law in this country does not concede an absolute right of representation to an employee in domestic enquiries as part of his right to be heard and that there is no right to representation by somebody else unless the rules or regulation and standing orders, if any, regulating the conduct of disciplinary proceedings specifically recognise such a right and provide for such representation: see Kalindi v. Tata Locomotive & Engg. Co. Ltd. [ (1960) 3 SCR 407 ], Dunlop Rubber Co. v. Workmen [ (1965) 2 SCR 139 ], Crescent Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. v. Ram Naresh Tripathi [ (1993) 2 SCC 115 ] and Indian Overseas Bank v. Officers' Assn. [ (2001) 9 SCC 540 ].

10. Learned counsel for the appellant Corporation has brought to our notice office memorandum dated 21-11-2003 by which the prayer to engage a legal practitioner to act as a defence assistant was rejected. Reference was made to the Rules, though no specific reference has been made to the discretion available to be exercised in particular circumstances of a case. The same has to be noted in the background of the basis of prayer made for the purpose. The reasons indicated by the respondent for the purpose were: (a) amount alleged to have been misappropriated is Rs 63.67 lakhs, (b) a number of documents and number of witnesses are relied on by the respondent, and (c) the prayer for availing services of the retired employee has been rejected and the respondent is unable to get any assistance to get any other able co-worker. None of these factors are really relevant for the purpose of deciding as to whether he should be granted permission to engage the legal practitioner. As noted earlier, he had to explain the factual position with reference to the documents sought to be utilised against him. A legal practitioner would not be in a positio