Allowed

Board of Directors Kalloorkad Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank LTD-2605, v. Manuel Mathew

Kerala HC1 Nov 2023WP(C)/8863/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a Writ Petition challenging an order of remand passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. It held that the Arbitration Court failed to record reasons for declaring the suit not maintainable, violating established principles of justice. The dispute involves retired bank employees seeking promotion. The original petition is disposed of. The Tribunal's order remanding the matter is

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of remand by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal is confirmed; Arbitration Court must reconsider the matter afresh with recording of reasons and appropriate orders; Order of remand shall b

Board of Directors Kalloorkad Farmers Service… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶3

WP(C) NO. 8863 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS KALLOORKAD FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD-2605, KALLOORKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 686668

¶6

2KALLOORKADFARMERSSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANKLTD-2605
KALLOORKADP.O,ERNAKULAMREPRESENTEDBYITSMANAGING
DIRECTOR,PIN-686668

¶7

BYADVP.V.BABY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1MANUELMATHEW
SENIORCLERK/BRANCHMANAGER-IN-CHARGE(RETIRED)
KALLOORKADFARMERSSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANK
LTD-2605,KALLOORKKADP.O,ERNAKULAMRESIDINGAT
VANDANANICKALHOUSE,MUTHALAKODAMP.O,
THODUPUZHA,IDUKKIDISTRICT,PIN-685605,

¶10

2 K.J.PONNACHAN

¶11

JUNIORCLERK/BRANCHMANAGER-IN-CHARGE(RETIRED)
KALLOORKADFARMERSSERVICECO-OPERATIVEBANK
LTD-2605,KALLOORKKADP.O,ERNAKULAMRESIDINGAT
KUDIYIRICALHOUSE,KALLOORKADP.O,ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT,PIN-686668

¶12

3KERALASTATECO-OPERATIVEARBITRATIONCOURT
KAITHAMUKKU,PETAROAD,PAZHAVANGADY,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024REPRESENTEDBYITS
SECRETARY

¶13

4 KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014, REPRESENTED BY ITS

¶14

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶15

¶16

SECRETARY,

¶17

BYADVS.
JOHNJOSEPH(ROY)
ANGELGLORIAV.S.(K/1477/2019)
SABIRN.S.(K/1554/2020)
JOSEPHFRANCIS(K/000897/2022)
SAMSONAROOJA(K/55/2003.)

¶18

SRI.JOHNJOSEPH,FORPARTYRESP.

¶19

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON01.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P11 order issued by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal in R.P No.104/2019 and 105/2019 and for a

¶24

further direction that the respondents 1 and 2 are not entitled to get any of the relief sought for and for incidental reliefs.

¶25

The party respondents are retired employees of the 2nd petitioner Bank. After attaining superannuation, they approached the

¶26

Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking the following reliefs:

¶27

i) to call for the records leading to issue of Ext.A8 and set aside the same.

¶28

ii) to declare that the 1st plaintiff is entitled to be promoted to the post of Managing Director in the 2nd defendant Bank in the available vacancy.

¶29

iii) to declare that the amendments made in Ext.A5 Feeder category making provision for direct recruitment to the post of MD is violative of the provisions of Rule 185(1) and (2) of the KCS Rules

¶30

iv) to issue a direction to the defendants 1 and 2 to give adequate promotion to the plaintiffs.

¶31

3. By Ext.P5 award dated 9.4.2019, the Arbitration Court came to

¶32

the conclusion that the Arbitration Petition was not maintainable under law.

¶33

The other issues raised by the plaintiff were also rejected. Challenging the

¶34

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶35

¶36

said order, the plaintiffs approached the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and preferred separate revision petitions. The Tribunal after elaborately considering the facts and circumstances came to the conclusion that the Arbitration Court has not assigned any plausible reason for holding that the Arbitration case was not maintainable. Holding so, the matter was remanded back for reconsideration afresh after affording reasonable opportunity to both sides to lead evidence.

¶37

The aforesaid orders passed by the Tribunal are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

¶38

Sri.P.V Baby, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the contention of the Bank that the Arbitration Case itself was not maintainable under Section 69 of the KCS Act. It is submitted that the party respondents had retired from the service and they could not have aspired for any promotion as they were not qualified in terms of Section 80B read with Rule 185 of the KCS Rules. Furthermore, they were not even in the feeder category for promotion. It is submitted that it was without adverting to any of these aspects that the petition was remanded back by the Tribunal.

¶39

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶40

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶41

¶42

as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

When this matter was taken up for consideration on 22.3.2023, this Court had ordered that final orders pursuant to the order of remand shall not be passed.

¶44

I have already extracted the prayers sought for by the petitioners in the Arbitration Case. The issues framed by the Arbitration Court were whether the suit was maintainable and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to promotion as prayed for. Insofar as the maintainability issues are concerned, the court has concluded thus in the order passed.

¶45

“For about all the above rival contentions of both parties in this Arbitration Case and also of the evidence taken from the side of the plaintiff and also of the defendants towards the dispute of promotion not provided to the plaintiffs in which this Court find out that the Arbitration Case filed by the plaintiff is not sustainable through this Court. So this court inclined with that of the defendant. Hence this Court declared that the Arbitration Case filed by the plaintiffs for promoting them to the post of Managing Director in the 2nd defendant is not maintainable (sic) ”

¶46

9. As rightly held by the Tribunal, absolutely no reasons have been

¶47

furnished by the Arbitration Court to conclude that the plaint filed was not maintainable under law. It has been laid down time and time again by the

¶48

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶49

¶50

Hon’ble Supreme Court that recording of reasons is an essential feature of the dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for the grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment.(See: Asst.Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and Brothers [(2010) SCC 4785].

¶51

In view of the principles above, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal was well justified in remanding the matter back to the Arbitration Court for disposal afresh in accordance with law. I make it clear

¶52

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶53

¶54

that the Arbitration Court shall consider the matter afresh after affording both sides an opportunity to adduce oral as well as documental evidence.

¶55

Order shall be passed untrammeled by any of the observations made by the

¶56

Tribunal. If the question of maintainability is raised, the said aspect shall also be adverted and appropriate orders shall be passed.

¶57

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶60

IAP

¶61

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶62

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8863/2023

¶64

PETITIONERS’EXHIBITS:

¶65

ExhibitP1ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEARCNO.61/2015
FILEDINTHEMONTHOFNOVEMBER2015FILED
BYTHE1STAND2NDRESPONDENTSBEFORETHE
3RDRESPONDENT
ExhibitP2ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHECOUNTERAFFIDAVIT
ARCNO.61/2015FILEDBYTHERESPONDENTS1
AND2/PETITIONERSDATED14/12/2015BEFORE
THE3RDRESPONDENT
ExhibitP3ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEPROOFAFFIDAVIT
FILEDBYTHEPETITIONERSINARCNO.61/2015
DATED19/1/2017BEFORETHE3RDRESPONDENT
ExhibitP4ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEPROOFAFFIDAVIT
FILEDBYTHE2NDRESPONDENTINARCNO.
61/2015DATED3/9/2018BEFORETHE3RD
RESPONDENT
ExhibitP5ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEAWARDINARCNO.
61/2015DATED9/4/2019ISSUEDBYTHE3RD
RESPONDENT
ExhibitP6ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHERPNO.104/2019
DATED27/12/2019FILEDBYTHE1ST
RESPONDENT/1STPETITIONERINARCBEFORETHE
3RDRESPONDENT
ExhibitP7ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHERPNO.105/2019
DATED27/12/2019FILEDBYTHE2ND

¶66

W.P.(C.) No.8863 of 2023

¶67

¶68

RESPONDENT/2NDPETITIONERINARCBEFORETHE
3RDRESPONDENT
ExhibitP8ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEARGUMENTNOTE
SUBMITTEDBYTHECOUNSELFORTHEREVISION
PETITIONERINRPNO.104/2019DATED
14/1/2020
ExhibitP9ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEARGUMENTNOTE
SUBMITTEDBYTHECOUNSELFORTHEREVISION
PETITIONERINRPNO.105/2019DATED
14/1/2020
ExhibitP10ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHEARGUMENTNOTEDATED
3/12/2021SUBMITTEDBYTHERESPONDENTSIN
R.PNOS.104AND105/2019
ExhibitP11ATRUEPHOTOCOPYOFTHECOMMONORDERDATED
31/1/2023INRPNO.104/2019AND105/2019OF
THE4THRESPONDENT

Board of Directors Kalloorkad Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank LTD-2605, v. Manuel Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Board of Directors Kalloorkad Farmers Service Co-Operative Bank LTD-2605, v. Manuel Mathew

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

Sreeja K.N Vs State of Kerala

S. Jayan Vs State of Kerala

R Satheesan Vs the Secretary, Quilon District State Transport Employees Co-Operative Society Ltd.

C.Pavithran Vs 1. Union of India

Abdul Rahiman T. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Kumar P.K Vs Union of India