Joint Registrar's jurisdiction under cooperatives statute is limited; disputes must be referred to arbitration.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner, who was employed with the 6^th respondent Society, has approached this Court pointing out that her pension requires to be reworked with reference to the mandate under Ext.P2 order issued by the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-operative Societies.

2. The petitioner responded to a notification issued by the 6^th respondent Society, inviting applications for the post of Junior Clerk. She was placed as Rank No.3 in the rank list published by the 6^th respondent Society. However, even after the 2^nd rank holder relinquished her claim, the petitioner was not appointed to the vacancy, in spite of making a specific request. For one reason or the other, the 6^th respondent Society did not appoint the petitioner and continued to engage temporary hands. In such circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.884 of 2001. By a judgment dated 26.02.2001, though this Court disposed of the original petition, and directed the Joint Registrar to consider the representation stated to have been submitted by the petitioner.

The Joint Registrar thereafter conducted a detailed enquiry and passed Ext.P4, stating that the petitioner would be entitled for appointment, further directing the 6^th respondent Society to appoint her as a Junior Clerk. However, the Society chose not to act on the basis of the directions issued, preferring to challenge the afore order, by filing another original petition, O.P. No.29518 of 2002. By a judgment dated 21.03.2007, the matter was remitted back to the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, pursuant to which, Ext.R5(b) order dated 31.12.2007 was issued, holding that the petitioner would only be entitled for appointment in the “next arising vacancy in the Society”. It was further found that the petitioner would not be eligible for any arrears or other benefits during the period, except salary and other benefits eligible for the post for the further period of working. The order as above was also challenged by the Society before this Court, and ultimately, the matter reached the Apex Court, and by the order at Ext.P6 dated 14.05.2010, the Apex Court, having refused to interfere, the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk on 24.05.2010 in the 6^th respondent Society. The petitioner was not satisfied and, therefore, she filed a fresh representation to the Joint Registrar - the 3^rd respondent herein, who passed the order at Ext.P2, essentially finding that that the petitioner should be extended the benefits with effect from 09.03.2000 (the date of expiry of rank list), further directing the petitioner to make remittance of the contribution required to be made to the respondent Board. The petitioner contends that as evidenced by Ext.P3, an amount of Rs.2,12,851/- was remitted by her on 11.10.2019, and even thereafter the benefits pursuant to Ext.P2 have not been extended to her. It is in such circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction noticed as above.

3. I have heard Smt.Molty Majeed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent Board.

4. As many as two issues arise for consideration in this writ petition.

5. The first issue that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to seek implementation of the directions contained in Ext.P2 order issued by the Joint Registrar. True, the Joint Registrar, by the order at Ext.P2, positively found that the service of the petitioner requires to be reckoned with effect from 09.03.2000. However, this Court notices that with reference to the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), a dispute as regards the one noticed herein, essentially a service disput