The non-payment of service benefits to an employee, despite an arbitration award, constitutes arbitrary action under Article 21 of the Constitution.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner is an employee of Manjeri PCC Marketing Co-operative Society Limited. He was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Society on 04.01.1994 and was granted first Higher Grade after completion of ten years on 26.06.2004. Due to financial issues, the Society decided to retrench its employees, except four employees. The retrenchment was to be effected after obtaining consent of the employees concerned.

2. The Managing Committee of the Society on

29.11.2011 decided to dispose of property of the Society so as to pay retrenchment compensation to its employees. Though the petitioner did not express willingness to be retrenched, his name was also included in the retrenchment plan. However, the petitioner was removed from service.

3. The petitioner complained to the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent directed respondents 1 to 3 to consider the question of reinstatement of the petitioner. When the petitioner approached this Court, the petitioner was relegated to the remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969 or to raise an industrial dispute.

4. The petitioner filed ARC No.29/2014 in the Co-operative Arbitration Court (Northern), Kozhikode. The Arbitration Court passed Ext.P5 Award dated 22.09.2018 remanding the matter to the Society for fresh consideration under due process of law. Respondents 1 and 2 preferred revision petition No.8/2019 before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the revision petition as per Ext.P6 order dated 04.01.2023.

5. Though the petitioner submitted representations to respondents 1 to 3 to disburse to him eligible benefits, benefits are not paid to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to direct respondents 1 to 3 to disburse all eligible benefits to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P5 Award.

6. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter affidavit.

Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has an alternate remedy by way of execution of the Award under Section 76 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act , 1969. Respondents 1 to 3 submitted that Arbitration Court cannot direct reinstatement of a dismissed employee. Respondents 1 to 3 have taken steps for getting the revision petition restored to the files of the Co- operative Tribunal. The writ petition is therefore without any merit.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel represeting respondents 1 to 3. I have also heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 4^th respondent.

8. The petitioner was an employee of the Society. The petitioner was retrenched from service as per Ext.P2 proceedings. The petitioner filed Arbitration Case and the Arbitration Court passed Ext.P5 Award setting aside the retrenchment of the petitioner and remanding the matter back to the Society for fresh consideration under due process of law. The Arbitration Court further declared that the petitioner is entitled to get his full remuneration including service benefits, if he has not attained the age of superannuation.

9. Though respondents 1 to 3 filed revision petition No.8/2019, the Co-operative Tribunal dismissed the revision petition as per Ext.P6 order. The revision petition was dismissed for default. Respondents 1 to 3 state that they are going to file restoration petition.

10. The service of the petitioner under the 1^st respondent-Society and his retrenchment is not disputed. The Arbitration Court has found that the retrenchment is illegal and the petitioner need be paid all service benefits. The defence of respondents 1 to 3 is that in order to execute the Award, the petitioner has to