Allowed

P.I.Sreedharan v. the Chairman/Managing Director

Kerala HC15 Jul 2016WP(C)/17566/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the arbitrary withdrawal of salary distribution through District Co-operative Bank by a hospital complex. The court held that a final order by the Joint Registrar under Section 66A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act must be implemented and directed the first respondent to comply with it forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed directing the first respondent to comply with the final order passed by the second respondent (Ex.P6) forthwith.

P.I.Sreedharan Vs the Chairman/Managing Director — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2016/24TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17566 of 2016 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. P.I. SREEDHARAN

¶8

S/O.T.A.RAMAN NAMBIAR, AGED 50 YEARS, THEEYANCHERIANGEVEEDU, P.O.ANCHAMPEEDIKA, VIA .MOTTAMMEL, KANNUR DISTRICT,

¶9

(GENERAL SECRETARY, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE STAFF ASSOCIATION)

¶10

2. MOLYKUTTY THOMAS AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.THOMAS, CHUKKANANIL, EDAKKOM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT (SECRETARY, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE WORKERS' FEDERATION).

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN

¶12

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶13

1. THE CHAIRMAN/MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIAVE HOSPITAL COMPLEX AND CENTRE FOR ADVANCED MEDICAL SERVICES LTD NO.4386, PARIYARAM MEDICAL COLLEGE, PARIYARAM - 686 021. KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY KANNUR - 670 001.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK R2 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.V. VIJULAL

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

...2/-

¶19

WP(C).No. 17566 of 2016 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26/9/2014 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT. P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/11/2015 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR, ACADEMY OF MEDICAL SCIENCE TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶24

EXT. P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/12/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS' UNION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11/1/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT. P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/1/2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/2/2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT. P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8/3/2016 SUBMITTED BY 8 EMPLOYEES, WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITOINERS UNION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 17566 of 2016

¶35

----------------------------------------

¶36

Dated this the 15^th day of July, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The grievance of petitioners, who are representing

¶39

two trade unions are that the first respondent has arbitrarily withdrawn the distribution of salary through District Co-operative Bank, which is a bank having advanced facilities including ATM, on political reasons and the direction issued by the second respondent to restore the facility as per Ext.P6 order is remaining unimplemented. It is also contended that, the very inception of Pariyaram Medical College, salaries of the employees are distributed through Kannur District Cooperative Bank, Pariyaram Branch, which is situated within the Hospital complex. Now, the first respondent has changed the system, by directing the employees to open account in Madai Co-operative Rural Bank, a Primary Society, which is situated far away from the

¶40

W.P.(C). No. 17566 of 2016

¶41

¶42

hospital complex causing innumerable difficulties to the employees. It is in this background, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner.

¶43

The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations, statements and demands made by the petitioners in this writ petition. That part, it is also contended that, the mode of disbursal of salary of the staff or employees of the first respondent is the prerogative of the first respondent management and at any rate, Board of Directors of Kerala State Co-operative Hospital Complex and Advanced Medical Services Ltd., Pariyaram has not taken any decision to withdraw the disbursal of salary through the Kannur District Co-operative Bank, Kannur. That apart the power and the authority of the second respondent to pass Ext.P6 order is also challenged by the first respondent.

¶44

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶45

W.P.(C). No. 17566 of 2016

¶46

¶47

learned Government Pleader and learned Standing

¶48

Counsel for the first respondent.

¶49

The sole question remains to be considered in this writ petition, whether petitioners are entitled to get Ext.P6 order implemented. It is admitted that, Ext.P6 order has become final and that is not under challenge before any authority. Therefore, it is an order passed by an authority by invoking the power conferred under Section 66A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Since the order has become final, I am of the considered opinion that, it is only just and proper that a direction is issued to the first respondent to comply with the same. More over, on a perusal of counter filed and submissions made by the learned counsel for the first respondent, it is categoric and clear that, the first respondent has no manner of objection in the members of the petitioners union, receiving salary through Kannur District Co-operative Bank. This is also

¶50

W.P.(C). No. 17566 of 2016

¶51

¶52

recorded.

¶53

Therefore, writ petition is allowed directing the

¶54

first respondent to comply with Ext.P6 order passed by

¶55

the second respondent forthwith

¶56

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶57

Sd/-

¶58

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶59

dlk/15/7/

P.I.Sreedharan v. the Chairman/Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.I.Sreedharan v. the Chairman/Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Noorjahan Vs Basheer

Mohammed Iqbal, Rep.by Its Power of Attorney Holder Irshad A.S. Vs Sumi

The Manrothuruth Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs N.Thankappan

G Anil Vs Basheer

Sreekantan Nair.S Vs State of Kerala

Surya Sankaranarayanan Vs the Regional Transport Authority