Disposed

Elikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another

Kerala HC4 Jul 2016WP(C)/10108/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged preliminary order finding violation of natural justice. Court held writ petition is infructuous as tribunal lacks jurisdiction over co-operative society employees under prevailing Supreme Court precedent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed as infructuous; preliminary order (Ext.P6) set aside; contentions left open for Arbitral Tribunal.

Elikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and… — Arbitration | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016/13TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10108 of 2010 (K)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN ID NO.52/2006 of INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI DATED 22.02.2010

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

ELIKKULAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K.158 MADUKKAKUNNU, KANJIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, P.RAJEEV.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.A.ANTONY SMT.LEELAMMA ANTONY

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LABOUR, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. K.A.ABRAHAM

¶13

KALLARACKAL, CHENGALAM-P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶14

3. ALICE MATHEW, W/O. MATHUKUTTY THOMAS NJARACKKAL HOUSE, ELIKKULAM KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶15

*** [ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.05.2010 IN I.A. NO. 6408 OF 2010]**

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.NOBLE MATHEW SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.K. SANEER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 10108 of 2010 (K)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶21

EXT.P1	-	COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 23.07.2001 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	-	COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE FROM DR.K.C. JOHN DATED 15.06.2004 OBTAINED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	-	COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 02.07.2004 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	-	COPY OF REPLY AFFIDAVIT DATED 29.07.2004 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN WP(C) nO.15603 OF 2004.
EXT.P5	-	COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 25.10.2004 PERTAINING TO EXT.P1 MEMO OF CHARGES SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE SHRI.D. BABU RAJ.
EXT.P6	-	COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 25.11.2004 PERTAINING TO EXT.P3 MEMO OF CHARGES SUBMITTED BY ADVOCATE SHRI.GIGI THOMAS.
EXT.P7	-	COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT DATED 08.01.2007 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D. NO.52 OF 2006 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.
EXT.P8	-	COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 30.04.2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE SAID I.D. NO.52 OF 2006 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.
EXT.P9	-	COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 22.10.2007 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.D. NO.52 OF 2006 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.
EXT.P10	-	COPY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE WORKMAN AS WW1 IN IN I.D. NO.52 OF 2006 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.
EXT.P11	-	COPY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE WORKMAN AS WW2 IN IN I.D. NO.52 OF 2006 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.
EXT.P12	-	COPY OF PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 22.02.2010 IN I.D. NO.52 OF 2006 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.10108 of 2010-K

¶28

---------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The petitioner is before this Court,

¶31

challenging the preliminary order of the Industrial Tribunal, produced as Ext.P12. The petitioner was the Management and the 2^nd respondent was the workman. The Industrial Tribunal found that the enquiry was not held in compliance with the principles of natural justice. As of now, there is absolutely no reason why this Court should look into the preliminary order, since a Larger Bench of this Court in Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative

¶32

W.P(C). No.10108 of 2010-K

¶33

¶34

Bank Ltd. v. Santhosh [2015 (4) KLT 163] has found that the Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes with respect to employees of Co-operative Societies, for reason of the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal; by way of amendments to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

¶35

In such circumstance, the preliminary order is of no consequence. There is absolutely no purpose served in examining the sustainability of Ext.P6 order, since either way there can be no remand made to the Industrial Tribunal. The 2^nd respondent would be left remedy to approach the Tribunal.

¶36

The writ petition would stand closed as

¶37

W.P(C). No.10108 of 2010-K

¶38

¶39

infructuous, setting aside Ext.P6 order, but leaving open all contentions of either parties

¶40

to be agitated before the Arbitral Tribunal.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

P.A. to Judge.

¶45

sp/04/07/16

Elikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M.Santhosh Vs Arijith Basu

Raveendran P.S. Vs R. Rajasekharan Nair

T.Abdul Khader Haji Vs the Special Tahasildar (L.a) Kasaragod

Shaji Vs District Executive Officer

A.a.Salim Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

K.K.Dasan Vs Velloor Grama Panchayat