Under R.74(3) of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, the Registrar must verify the correctness and genuineness of an execution claim against available records before issuing a demand notice, requiring formal adjudication where the quantum of an arbitration award remains in dispute.

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

JUDGMENT

Since a common issue is raised in all these cases, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C) No.9492 of 2026 is filed seeking to quash Ext.P22 order issued by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent, whereas WP(C) No.9534 of 2026 is filed by the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.9492 of 2026 seeking implementation of Ext.P22 order.

3. W.P.(C) No.9492 of 2026 is filed by a Society and the 3rd respondent was an employee of the petitioner-Society. He was dismissed from service on 31.05.2012 and prior to his dismissal thereof, he was imposed with the punishment of demotion as Driver/Bearer to the lowest stage in Grade II with effect from 23.05.2007. The dismissal order was challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing ARC No.66 of 2012 before the Cooperative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, which culminated in Ext.P1 award, whereby the punishment of dismissal from service was set aside. The 3rd respondent has also filed ARC No.65 of 2013 challenging the punishment of demotion, which was disposed of as per Ext.P2 award, whereby the punishment of demotion was set aside and directed reinstatement of the 3rd respondent to the post of Assistant Cook from 23.05.2007 and with attendant benefits including back wages. Ext.P1 award was challenged by the 3rd respondent by filing A.P.No.11 of 2019 before the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, which culminated in Ext.P3 judgment, wherein the direction for reinstatement of the 3rd respondent in service with back wages, continuity of service and service benefits were modified by granting the 3rd respondent compensation to the tune of 50% of the salary for the month of May, 2012 for the period 01.06.2012 till 31.01.2018 with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of dismissal till date of payment and also a lump sum compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs without interest with a further direction to make remittance of necessary amount as per the rules towards the pension fund of the 3rd respondent. The appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P1 award as A.P.No.18 of 2019 was disposed of as per Ext.P4 in terms of Ext.P3. Ext.P2 award was challenged by the petitioner by filing A.P.No.17 of 2019, which was disposed of as per Ext.P5 setting aside the direction in Ext.P2 award for reinstatement of the 3rd respondent as Assistant Cook and directed that the petitioner be paid only the benefit as ordered in Ext.P3 judgment. Exts.P1 & P2 awards and also Exts.P3 to P5 judgments were challenged by the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent before this Court by filing WP(C) Nos. 4111 of 2020 and 10951 of 2020. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment upholding the directions in Exts.P3 to P5 judgments, except to the extent of quantum of compensation, directing that as far as compensation is concerned, the same is fixed at Rs. 2.5 Lakhs, which is half the amount awarded by the Arbitration Court and confirmed by the Tribunal. Petitioner filed R.P.No.281 of 2023 seeking to review Ext.P6 judgment, which was disposed of as per Ext.P7 order confirmed in Ext.P6 judgment, but vacating the component of compensation clarifying that every liberty is available to the 3rd respondent to execute Exts.P1 & P2 award, qua the back wages as per law. So, based on the same, the petitioner calculated the amount due to the 3rd respondent, and an amount of Rs. 5 Lakhs was paid in full and final settlement of the directions in Ext.P6 judgment. It is further submitted that an amount of Rs.1,56,870/- was paid towards gratuity to the 3rd respondent and other benefits were also granted to the petitio