The Ombudsman has jurisdiction to address issues pertaining to pension non-disbursement under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, confirming employee rights even when arbitration awards are challenged.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners, a society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (‘the Act’ for short) and the Board of Directors of the society, challenge Exhibit P5 order passed by the second respondent, Kerala Co-operative Ombudsman contending that the same is absolutely without jurisdiction.

2. The third respondent was an employee of the petitioners. The third respondent had filed a petition before the Kerala Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram as ARC No.100 of 2004 claiming that she was a regular employee of the society since 16.08.1962 till the closure of the society on account of financial crisis in January 1984. The said case was contested by the petitioners. As per Exhibit P1 Award, it was found that the third respondent was entitled to get salary from the year

1997 till her retirement. She was also found eligible for pensionary benefits as per law. Exhibit P1 Award was challenged by the first petitioner before the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapurm in R.P.No.47 of 2010. The said revision petition was dismissed, confirming the Award. Exhibit P2 is dated 26.02.2011.

3. In the above circumstances, the third respondent approached the second respondent, the Co-operative Ombudsman complaining that she had not been paid her pension. The complaint was considered and by Exhibit P5, the petitioner has been directed to be paid her pension within a period of one month of the date of receipt of the order.

4. According to Sri.T.M..Raman Kartha who appears for the petitioners, the second respondent has no jurisdiction to execute an Award passed by the Cooperative Arbitration Court. The remedy of the third respondent was to have preferred a proper execution petition and got the Award executed. It is also contended that, no service records of the third respondent are available with the society. Therefore, the petitioners are not in a position to comply with the Award. Since Exhibit P5 has been passed in excess of the jurisdiction that has been conferred on the Ombudsman, by section 69A of the Act, it is contended that the same is liable to be set aside. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

5. The stand of the petitioners in not giving the benefits of Exhibit P1 Award to the third respondent is something that cannot be justified. It is worth noticing that the petitioners had contested the ARC filed by the third respondent and had suffered the Award. The same was also taken up in Revision before the Co-operative Tribunal by the petitioner. By Exhibit P2, the revision has also been dismissed. The revision was dismissed on 26.02.2011. The third respondent is denied not only her salary but also her pensionary benefits. The plight of the third respondent can easily be imagined. Therefore, she cannot be blamed for having approached the second respondent with a complaint.

6. The second respondent has considered the point that is put forward by the counsel for the petitioner in Exhibit P5 in the following words:-

I am not inclined to interfere in the dispute with regard to the denial of employment. Moreover this authority is not an executing court or authority of the award passed by the Arbitration Court. This Authority has no jurisdiction to interfere in the dispute with regard to the service conditions specified under Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act except the non-disbursement or delay in disbursement of pension. Section 7(1)(j) of the The Co-operative Obmudsman Scheme specifically declared that if there is any delay caused in disbursement of pension or non- disbursement of pension caused deficiency of service and hence this Authority has ample power and jurisdiction to interfere in the said dispute.

I find that the act of non-disbursement of pension to the complainant caused serious deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. The violation of court order from the part of the respondent is not a tolerable one. In my view, the act of the respondent is nothing