Dismissed

Mohanan Velayudhan v. Inchiany Service Co-Operative Service Co-Operative Bank

Kerala HC5 Dec 2018WP(C)/15034/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a seniority list and mandamus for promotion in a cooperative bank. The Court held that disputes regarding employment, seniority, and promotion are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Since no statutory violation or breach of public

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, directing the petitioner to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.

Mohanan Velayudhan Vs Inchiany Service… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 15034 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHANAN VELAYUDHAN SENIOR CLERK, INCHIANY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K.154, INCHIYANI.P.O.-686512, KANJIRAPPALLY,KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 INCHIANY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K.154 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, INCHIYANI.P.O.-686512, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM.

¶11

2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF INCHIANY SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 154 REPRESENTED BY PRESIDENT, INCHIYANI.P.O.-686512, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM.

¶12

3 THOMAS.K. GEORGE SENIOR CLERK, INCHIANY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 154, INCHIYANI.P.O.-686512, KANJIRAPPALLY, KOTTAYAM.

¶13

4 THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOTTAYAM-686001.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.D.KISHORE

¶15

SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶18

:-2-:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner, who is working as Senior Clerk in the 1^st respondent Bank, which is a Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P2 seniority list published by the Bank and Ext.P4 order of the 1^st respondent; a writ of mandamus commanding the 4^th respondent to consider Exts.P6 and P7 petitions filed by the petitioner before the 4^th respondent Joint Registrar to issue a general direction to respondents 1 and 2 to publish cadre wise seniority list of the employees for the purpose of promotion in accordance with feeder category and to declare that the petitioner is senior to the 3^rd respondent, as there is no direction in Ext.P1 award of the Industrial

¶21

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶22

:-3-:

¶23

Tribunal to grant “any other benefits” overlooking the seniority/promotion of the petitioner, which he

¶24

got while the 3^rd respondent was out of service.

¶25

On 24.5.2018 when this writ petition came

¶26

up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. Notice was ordered to respondents 1 to 3 by

¶27

speed post. Learned Government Pleader took notice for the 4^th respondent.

¶28

raising the question of maintainability of this writ petition as a preliminary issue, in view of the provisions under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-

¶29

operative Societies Act and also the decisions of this Court on that point.

¶30

petitioner, the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent

¶31

and also the learned Government Pleader for the 4^th

¶32

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶33

:-4-:

¶34

respondent.

¶35

Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 deals with disputes to be

¶36

decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. As per clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 69, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises between the society or its Committee and any past Committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, such disputes shall be referred to Co-operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, in the

¶37

case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar,

¶38

in the case of monetary disputes, and the Arbitration Court or the Registrar, as the case may

¶39

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶40

:-5-:

¶41

be, shall decide such disputes and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. As per clause (b) of subsection (2) of Section 69, for the purpose of sub-section (1), any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in subsection (1) of Section 80 of the Act, including

¶42

their promotion and inter se seniority, shall also be deemed to be disputes.

¶43

In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das

¶44

Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603] the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article

¶45

226 of the Constitution of India when an

¶46

efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather

¶47

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶48

:-6-:

¶49

than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exists sufficient ground to invoke the

¶50

extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.

¶51

In Authorised Officer, State Bank of

¶52

Travancore v. Mathew K.C.[(2018) 3 SCC 85] the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised

¶53

judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ

¶54

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶55

:-7-:

¶56

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra) , i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment

¶57

in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419] and Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433] the Apex Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective

¶58

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶59

:-8-:

¶60

alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved

¶61

person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is

¶62

created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

¶63

In Thansingh Nathmal's case (supra) a

¶64

Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions

¶65

except the territorial restrictions which are

¶66

expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it

¶67

is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do

¶68

so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands

¶69

that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to

¶70

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶71

:-9-:

¶72

certain self imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily, the court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly

¶73

onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon

¶74

a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for

¶75

obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved

¶76

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶77

:-10-:

¶78

petitioner to move another tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.

¶79

Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and

¶80

the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the

¶81

Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy

¶82

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶83

:-11-:

¶84

provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes,

¶85

J. in Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336] at page 356 in the following passage:

¶86

"There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute ..... But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it ..... the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to."

¶87

The rule laid down in that passage was approved by

¶88

the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.[1919 AC 368] and has been reaffirmed

¶89

by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. [1935

¶90

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶91

:-12-:

¶92

AC 532] and Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. [AIR 1940 PC 105] . It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights and has been followed by the Apex Court throughout.

¶93

In the instant case, the claim made by the petitioner for promotion to the post of Accountant; claim for seniority; etc. are disputes which have to be raised for adjudication before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, in view of the provisions under clause (c) of sub-section (1), read with clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act, the Co-operative Arbitration Court is

¶94

empowered to make such interlocutory orders as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice,

¶95

pending award of a dispute referred to it under

¶96

Section 69. An award passed by the Arbitration Court under sub-section (1) of Section 70 of the

¶97

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶98

:-13-:

¶99

Act is appealable before the Co-operative Tribunal, under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 82 of the Act. The provisions under Sections 69 and 70 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that an effective statutory forum has been created under the Act for adjudication of disputes of the employees of a Cooperative Banks in connection with their employment, including promotion and inter se seniority.

¶100

In Association of Milma Officers v. State

¶101

of Kerala [2015 (1) KLT 849] , one of the issues that came up for consideration before a Larger Bench of this Court was as to whether a writ

¶102

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. After referring to the provisions under the Act, this Court held that writ petitions

¶103

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶104

:-14-:

¶105

are maintainable against Co-operative Societies in

¶106

certain circumstances, namely, when the action complained of in the writ petition is of any statutory violation on the part of the Co-operative Society or the action of the Co-operative Society, if falls in a public domain or breach of public duty is complained of. In the absence of breach of any statutory duty or public duty, a writ petition cannot be entertained against a Co-operative Society. In the said decision, the Larger Bench held that the Full Bench judgment in Bhaskaran and

¶107

others v. Additional Secretary and others [1987 (2) KLT 903] , cannot be read as holding that writ petition will lie only against a Co-operative Society, which is State or authority within the

¶108

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

¶109

In Association of Milma Officers' case (supra) , the 2^nd petitioner was working as Senior

¶110

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶111

:-15-:

¶112

Manager-in-charge of Thiruvananthapuram Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd., who was governed by the Staff Regulations of the said Union. It was the case of the petitioners that even though the 2^nd petitioner was eligible to be appointed in the post of Senior Manager (Diary), respondents 3 and 4 were taking hasty steps to appoint the 7^th respondent to the said post. After referring to the Staff Regulations, this Court held that the said Regulation, being not of statutory nature, even if the submission is accepted that action of the respondent in proceeding to appoint the 7^th respondent was in violation of the Staff Regulation, the said violation of the non-statutory provision could not have been made the subject matter of writ proceedings. Since no infraction of any statutory provision or violation of any public duty was alleged, this Court held that the writ

¶113

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶114

:-16-:

¶115

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable.

¶116

In such circumstances, the reliefs sought for in this writ petition squarely falls within the scope of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative

¶117

Societies Act.

¶118

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act by approaching the Co-operative Arbitration Court.

¶119

All pending interlocutory applications are

¶120

closed.

¶121

Sd/-

¶122

ANIL K.NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶123

ami/11.12.18

¶124

W.P.(C)No.15034 of 2018

¶125

:-17-:

¶126

APPENDIX

¶127

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶128

EXT.P1.	AWARD DATED 17-03-2010 IN I.D. NO. 36/2010 OF THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.
EXT.P2.	A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST PUBLISHED BY THE BANK.
EXT.P3.	A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 02- 05-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4.	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 31-05-2017.
EXT.P5.	A TRUE COPY OF THE FEEDER CATEGORY APPROVED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR ON 09- 02-1982.
EXT.P6.	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION 03-06-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.
EXT.P7.	A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION 29-07-2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT REGISTRAR.

Mohanan Velayudhan v. Inchiany Service Co-Operative Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanan Velayudhan v. Inchiany Service Co-Operative Service Co-Operative Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hassan V.M Vs the Chalakudy Taluk Primary Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank

C.D.Chacko @ Sunny Vs Government of Kerala

Rense George @ Rense Varkey Vs Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

The Board of Directors, Kozhipally Service Co-Operative Bank Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operatives (General)

The Managing Committee Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

M/S. Hotel Ashoka Inn Vs State of Kerala