IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

WEDNESDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 27TH POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 7808 OF 2014 PETITIONER:

KOTTARAKKARA PUBLIC WORKS SKILLED WORKERS LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., Q-459, KOTTARAKKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

BY ADV SRI.T.V.AJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM - 691 013.

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.I.P.(LB), DIVISION NO.V, KOLLAM - 691 001.

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.I.P (LB), SUB DIVISION NO.14, KUNDARA, KOLLAM - 691 501.

BY SRI.JUSTINE JACOB, SR.PP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Labour Contract Co-operative Society (in short ‘the Society’), which was awarded the work of Kerala Irrigation Project (LB) formation of Main Canal Bank road by the 2^nd respondent vide Ext.P1 letter dated 07.08.1991. The Society executed the agreement for the work having an estimate rate of Rs.3,59,543/-. According to the petitioner, the officer then holding the office of the 3^rd respondent, who had supervised the above work, had wanted to award the work to his relative, who was a private contractor and he had willfully failed to record the proper measurement of the work done by the petitioner Society in the measurement book causing deduction in the quantity of work executed, resulting in great loss and prejudice to the Society. It is also the claim of the petitioner that it was denied conveyance charges for bringing materials from a quarry distant from the work one originally envisaged and also on account of the fact that interest was denied for delayed payment. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P2 arbitration case under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act for recovering a sum of Rs.1,78,651.50. The Arbitrator allowed the said claim by Ext.P5 award dated 11.05.1994. In a Revision Petition filed by the respondents before the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal, the said award was set aside taking the view that the Arbitrator had wrongly declared the respondents ex parte. The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Arbitrator for fresh disposal by Ext.P6 order dated 22.02.1995. The matter thereafter remained pending before the Arbitrator for nearly 17 years. By Ext.P7 judgment dated 31.05.2012, this Court directed the Arbitrator to dispose of the ARC within a period of four months. The Arbitrator thereafter considered the matter and dismissed the claims raised by the petitioner Society on the finding that there was absolutely no documentary evidence produced by either side which would enable the Arbitrator to come to a conclusion regarding the question as to whether there were any amounts payable to the petitioner Society. The petitioner therefore filed Ext.P14 appeal before the Kerala C0- operative Tribunal and the Tribunal by Ext.P15 judgment upheld the award of the Arbitrator prompting the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the above writ petition.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the finding of the Tribunal regarding the report prepared by the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Arbitrator is absolutely incorrect in law. It is submitted that when an Advocate Commissioner had been appointed by the Arbitrator in order to find out the exact extent of work done by the petitioner Society, the respondents ought to have co-operated with the Advocate Commissioner and should have produced necessary records and should have assisted the Advocate Commissioner in arriving at a proper conclusion. It is submitted that there is a clear finding that the respondents had failed to co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the report of the Advocate Commissioner quantifying the amount of work executed by the petitioner Society should be accepted. It is submitted that the finding o