J U D G M E N T

Mohammed Nias.C.P. J., Writ Appeal No. 1560 of 2022 is filed against the judgment dated 29-07-2022 in W.P.C. No. 25949 of 2019. W.A. No. 1561 of 2022 is filed against the judgment dated, 29-7-2022 in Writ Petition (C ) No. 7256 of 2018. Both the above writ appeals were decided by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner in W.P.C. No. 25949 of 2019 was working as a Senior Clerk in the Parathodu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. A show cause notice dated 15-1-2007 was issued to him alleging misconduct. He was suspended from service with effect from 17-1-2007. A domestic enquiry followed where the charges were found to be true and by way of punishment, the petitioner was reverted to the post of Salesman by order dated, 18-09-2007 and the same was served on him with a direction to join service on 26- 09-2007, revoking the order of suspension. He gave a reply stating that he would join duty only after his appeal against the punishment to the managing committee is disposed and thus refused to join the reverted post. Thereafter, a disciplinary sub committee was constituted, an enquiry was stated to be conducted and the petitioner was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence and wilful abandonment of service. Petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter, the employee filed ARC 191/2008 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram challenging the order of reversion and the order of dismissal. The Arbitration Court found that the enquiry with respect to the first charge-sheet and the proceedings were valid but the punishment was disproportionate. Accordingly, interfering with the same, the punishment was set aside and bank was directed to pay all benefits and back wages in the post of Senior Clerk from the date of suspension till the date of superannuation. The said order was challenged by the Bank before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal as Appeal No. 6 of 2017 which modified the order to reinstate as the employee had by then attained the age of superannuation. It was further directed that his absence from the date of withdrawal from suspension till the direction to join duty that is 26-09-2007, till the date of superannuation shall be treated as leave without allowances granting eligible leave to his credit and leave without allowance for the remaining period. All the benefits including backwages and pay revision during the said period with interest at 10% per annum was directed to be paid. It was also held that he was entitled to all the pensionary benefits as per law. This order of the Tribunal was challenged in W.P.C. No. 7256 of 2006 by the bank. The employee filed W.P.C. No. 2594 of 2009 seeking implementation of the order of the Tribunal.

3. The learned Single Judge who considered both the writ petitions proceeded on the basis that the Arbitration Court had found that the punishment imposed against by the employer was fair, remitted the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal of the Bank exclusively from the standpoint of the employee as to whether he is entitled to any benefit of being restored to service as has been ordered by the Arbitration Court, de hors its findings with respect to the disciplinary action or the punishment imposed against him thereto, namely reversion to lower post. It is challenging the common judgment that the employee has filed these Writ Appeals.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Shaji Thomas submits that he had challenged the punishment imposed in the first instance as well as the removal from service when he approached the Arbitration Court. He also argues that the learned Single Judge found that the punishment was found to be fair by the Arbitration Court, which is factually incorrect. He urged for the implementation of the orders of the Tribunal stating that no interference was warranted in the order of the Tribunal by the learned Single Judge.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank Sri. P.C.

Sasidharan submits that the app