Allowed

The Padiotchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. T.v.Kunhikannan

Kerala HC4 Jul 2017WA/2065/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged an order dismissing a writ petition filed by a cooperative society. The High Court clarified that service disputes with monetary consequences are judicially reviewable. It held that such disputes are not pure money disputes.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed; the orders of the Registrar and the Single Judge were set aside; the matter was remanded to the Co-operative Arbitration Court.

The Padiotchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2017/13TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶6

WA.No. 2065 of 2016 () IN WP(C).28247/2016

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28247/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-08-2016

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

THE PADIOTCHAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. P.O PADIOTCHAL, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1. T.V.KUNHIKANNAN, S/O KANNAN, THAYALE VALAPPIL, PERINGALA, CHITTADI P.O, ALAKKODE VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 571.

¶13

2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), ARBITRATOR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 571.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

VPS

¶17

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶18

----------------------------------------------W.A. No.2065 of 2016

¶19

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2017

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶22

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent, who was the 1^st respondent in the writ proceedings as well.

¶23

It appears that the 1^st respondent was an employee of the appellant Cooperative Society. He had some disputes with regard to his service conditions and payments thereunder. He moved an application before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies in terms of section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) claiming it to be a money dispute. An objection was taken by him that in fact it was not a money dispute and rather, it was a service dispute where consequential relief could be quantified in money terms. The submission being that it was essentially a service dispute and hence should go to the Arbitration Court.

¶24

We may clarify the position that if it is a service dispute, then the matter has to be dealt with in accordance with section 69(1) read with section

¶25

W.A.2065/2016

¶26

¶27

69(2) of the Act by an Arbitration Court and if it is a pure and simple money dispute, then it has to be dealt with by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.

¶28

Upon objection being taken, the Registrar, before whom the proceeding was initiated as a money claim, by Ext.P3 order dated 27.4.2016, took the view that the dispute is monetary and he had the jurisdiction. Being aggrieved, the Co-operative Society had preferred the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed holding that the claim was of money and therefore, Ext.P3 was in order. Hence the appeal.

¶29

Having heard learned counsel on both sides and with their consent, this appeal is being disposed of at this stage itself, for we are of the view that the appeal has to be allowed and the impugned order as well as the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be supported. Almost every service disputes would have a monetary consequence. Merely because a dispute has a monetary consequence does not make the dispute a money claim. It remains essentially a service dispute with monetary consequences. This is how we read the import of section 69 of the Act. Here the dispute, both the parties agree, relates to certain service conditions. They naturally reflect upon and culminate into monetary claims. Thus, essentially a service dispute, cannot by this reasoning, be converted into a monetary claim. This being our

¶30

W.A.2065/2016

¶31

¶32

understanding and our finding, we are of the view that the order of the Registrar and that of the learned single Judge of this Court cannot be sustained. They are set aside. The matter in relation to the 1^st respondent would now stand referred to the Arbitration Court for the said purpose.

¶33

The appeal is allowed. The orders of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and that of the learned single Judge of this Court are set aside. The Registrar is consequently directed to transfer the file and the records to the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Northern Region, Kozhikode within a fortnight of production of a copy of this judgment before him. It is expected that the Arbitration Court would take up the matter and dispose it of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months.

¶34

Sd/NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V.,

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

vps

The Padiotchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. T.v.Kunhikannan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Padiotchal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. T.v.Kunhikannan

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

Varsha Velayudhan Vs the Deputy Secretary (Exam)

State of Kerala Vs Sreejith.S

P.Jayaram Parameswaran Vs P.Ajikumar

Aji Mathew Vs Teh Federal Bank Ltd.

Aluva Motors India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Deepak U. Nair Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation