Courts may abstain from interfering in employment benefit disputes during pending arbitration, emphasizing fair and timely resolution of allegations before disbursal.

JUDGMENT

The claim of the petitioner is for disbursal of his gratuity and other retirement benefits. The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent Bank and he retired from service on 30.11.2013. While the petitioner was in service, there was an allegation against the petitioner by one Arun K.Philip, alleging that the petitioner's wife had participated in an auction proceedings initiated by the Bank and purchased a property thereon. On instructions from the Department, the Managing Committee appointed a Sub Committee, who went into the allegations and found that no loss has been caused to the Bank and also recommended that no action be taken against the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, there was no interdiction as such in any relative participating in an auction initiated by the Bank, at the time when his wife participated in the auction. It was only subsequently, a Circular was issued by the Bank prohibiting such conduct, is the contention of the petitioner. Despite the Managing Committee having accepted the recommendation of the Sub Committee and having decided to close the proceedings against the petitioner, the Joint Registrar by Ext.P5 re-opened the issue and directed further proceedings to be taken against the petitioner. Admittedly, Ext.P5 order is challenged by the petitioner in ARC No.94 of 2013, pending before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram; wherein an interim order of stay was also granted in I.A.No.74 of 2013. It is submitted by the respondent Bank that there are also other allegations in Ext.P5, levelled by the Joint Registrar.

2. As a matter of fact, the person who filed the complaint against the petitioner is not a party in the above writ petition. However, it is to be noticed that the said person had filed another writ petition numbered as W.P.(c) No.17153 of 2013, which was posted along with this writ petition and the same was dismissed as not pressed on 18.12.2013. In such circumstance, this Court is of the opinion that the said person need not be issued fresh notice in the writ petition since he was aware of the above writ petition.

3. In any event, since the matter is pending consideration before the Arbitration Court, it may not be proper for this Court to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct payment of retirement benefits to the petitioner. However, since the petitioner's gratuity and other retirement benefits are not disbursed, only for the reason of the pending arbitration case, it would only be proper and just that the arbitration case is disposed of expeditiously. In such circumstances, the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, is suo motu impleaded as the additional third respondent. Registry to carry out the incorporation of the additional third respondent in the cause title before issuance of a certified copy of this judgment.

4. The petitioner and the respondent Bank shall appear before the Arbitration Court on 22.01.2014. The Arbitration Court shall fix a date for hearing and shall dispose of the same within three months' from 22.01.2014. It is made clear that this Court has not considered Ext.P5 on merits at all and it is for the Arbitration Court to look into the matter.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.