J U D G M E N T

The petitioners in these two cases are the legal heirs of Vamadevan, who unfortunately died on 25.04.2011.

2. Late Vamadevan was working in the 'Cherthala Service Co-

operative Bank Ltd.,' ('Society' for short) as its Manager, when he was proceeded under a disciplinary enquiry on the allegation that he had committed misdemeanor and misappropriation; and simultaneously, the Society initiated Arbitration Cases against him, along with certain other employees.

3. However, while the afore two proceedings were pending, Vamadevan died; and consequently, the disciplinary action elapsed, while the ARCs culminated in an Award dated 23.06.2018, a copy of which is on record as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C)No.24211/2021.

4. Pending the ARCs, consequent to the death of Vamadevan, the petitioners were brought on record and they thereafter, challenged Ext.P8 Arbitration Award before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, through appeals, but which were also dismissed through an order dated 16.02.2021 - a copy of which is available as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C)No.24211/2021.

5. The petitioners thus challenge the Arbitration Award and the Appellate order of the Co-operative Tribunal in W.P. (C)No.24211/2021; while, they seek that the retiral benefits of late Vamadevan be disbursed to them through W.P.(C)No.17309/2021. 6. I have heard Sri.V.Varghese – learned counsel for the petitioners in both cases; Sri.M.Sasindran – learned Standing Counsel for the Society and Smt.Resmi Thomas – learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

7. Sri.V.Varghese argued extensively on the merits of the Arbitration Award and the Appellate order of the Tribunal. He submitted that said Forums proceeded to find liability against late Vamadevan solely on the basis of certain documents which were not genuine or original and that they have erred in having relied upon photocopies of the same and on other secondary evidence. He then argued that there is no discussion regarding the evidence or the documents marked during the Arbitration in either of the impugned orders, but that the Arbitration Court still found that late Vamadevan was liable to pay large amounts to the Society. He argued that the Arbitration Court, in fact, ought to have seen that the relevant cash book, ledger, loan register etc., were not produced and ought to have properly appreciated the evidence of PW1, who admitted that late Vamadevan never issued any document from the Society in the names of Smt.Shajimon, Smt.Sreedevi and Smt.Pushpalatha as alleged against him. He concluded his submissions saying that, in any event, the Arbitration Court and the Tribunal ought to have seen that there was no loss occasioned to the Society because they had not paid back any amounts to the depositors nor did they suffer any detriment in the gold loan transactions, which is evident from the evidence on record. He thus prayed that W.P.(C)No.24211/2021 be allowed; with an adscititious plea that W.P.(C)No.17309/2021 be ordered, directing the Society to disburse the retiral benefits of late Vamadevan to his clients.

8. In response, Sri.M.Sasindran submitted that the attempt of the petitioners is to have a virtual re-trial of the Arbitration Cases before this Court and argued that this is impermissible in law. He contended that, since the Arbitration Court had gone through the evidence and documents marked in great detail and discussed the same, leading to its opinion on it, the petitioners cannot seek its further re-assessment by this Court, when it acts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He added that this is more so because, the statutory Tribunal also found, giving cogent reasons, that the conclusions of the Arbitration Court was without error. He asserted that petitioners are acting solely on surmises because late Vamadevan was the Manager of the Branch at the relevant time and the documents marked in evidence would ineluctably establish his connivance in the misappropriation and mi