Delays in challenging arbitration awards require justification; petitions may be dismissed for lack of timely action by claimants.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner was working as a Manager with the 2^nd respondent Society. The petitioner retired from the 2^nd respondent Society upon superannuation on 31.3.2016. The petitioner was only being paid a portion of the monthly pension after retirement. DCRG was also not paid to the petitioner, on account of which the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.6997 of 2017. By the judgment dated 9.8.2019, this Court disposed of the afore writ petition as under:

In the afore perspective, I am compelled to allow this writ petition and to direct the first respondent to pay the eligible amount of gratuity and other benefits to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; within which time, they will be at liberty to approach the competent Arbitrator/Court and seek orders against the petitioner, reiteratingly clarifying that in the event no such interdictory orders are issued by a competent Authority/Court within the time granted herein, the society will be enjoined to release the amounts to him, subject to any further orders that may be issued by the Arbitrator/Court in future.

2. On the basis of the directions issued as above, the

2^nd respondent Society approached the Arbitrator under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) and obtained Ext.P4 award dated 4.12.2019. It is seeking to challenge the award at Ext.P4, as well as for a direction to the 5^th respondent to disburse the entire pension and a further direction to the 2^nd respondent to disburse the DCRG to the petitioner, that the captioned writ petition is instituted.

3. Heard Sri. T. Madhu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri. P.P. Jacob, the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent herein.

4. The 2^nd respondent herein has raised a preliminary objection as regards the inordinate delay in presenting the writ petition.

5. True, the writ petition has been instituted only in the year 2023 seeking to challenge the steps initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the award at Ext.P4.

6. The counsel for the petitioner would, however, contend that there is no delay insofar as Ext.P4 order is not an enforceable award and therefore the petitioner is justified in seeking to institute the writ petition in 2023.

7. However, from a perusal of Ext.P3 judgment, this Court notices that, taking note of the contentions raised by the respondent Society that it is entitled to recover the amounts even out of the DCRG payable to its employees on the basis of orders to be obtained from the statutory authorities like the authority under Section 69 of the Act, this Court had permitted the Society to approach the authority under of the Act seeking quantification of the liability.

8. It is on the basis of the directions issued as above, which had also been accepted by the petitioner, that Ext.P4 award has been issued. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the petitioner that Ext.P4 is unenforceable cannot be considered at this stage. The writ petition has been instituted only on 10.2.2023 seeking to challenge the order at Ext.P4. No explanation has also been provided for the delay in presenting the writ petition itself.

9. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to succeed. Therefore, this writ petition would stand dismissed.

10. At the same time, this Court notices that the petitioner has a case that even if there is any amount due from him, proper quantification has not been effected by the authority under Section 69 of the Act and the afore has been delegated to another authority