Contempt case alleging violation of the Court's judgment directing reinstatement of a cooperative society employee. The petitioner had superannuated and was later dismissed de novo from an anterior date. The Court held any finding of defiance would be academic and closed the case with liberty to challenge the dismissal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1945
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1008 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.4698 OF 2018 DATED 18.01.2023
PETITIONER:
K.M.RAVI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, THALIYACHA HOUSE, NANMINDA, KOZHIKODE, PIN – 673613
BY ADVS.
LAKSHMI RAMADAS
SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 SRI.SUBHEESH KRISHNAN, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) SECRETARY, NANMINDA RURAL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO.D 1988, NANMINDA.P.O., KOZHIKODE RESIDING AT KUTHUPARACKAL HOUSE, P.O., KARUMALA, KOZHIKODE - 673 6122 SRI.K.K.VASU NAIR, (FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER) PRESIDENT, NANMINDA RURAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD NO.D 1988, NANMINDA.P.O., KOZHIKODE RESIDING AT KUTTICHATHANKANDI HOUSE, NANMINDA P.O., KOZHIKODE - 673 613, PIN – 673613BY ADV P.C.SASIDHARAN - SC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
COC 1008/23
2
JUDGMENT
This Contempt Case has been filed by the petitioner alleging
that the respondents have acted in violation of the judgment of this
Court in WP(C)No.4698/2018 dated 18.01.2023.
2 . Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Lakshmi Ramadas – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that, when this Court delivered judgment on 18.01.2023, confirming the orders of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short) - which,
in turn, approved the order of the Arbitration Court, directing reinstatement of his client – refusal to do so and then to impel a contention that, through a subsequent disciplinary action, he had been dismissed from service with effect from an anterior date, amounts to gross abuse of processes and hence, contempt for the orders of this Court. He argued that, unless the respondents had reinstated his client in service, there was no question of even a fresh enquiry being conducted in terms of the liberty reserved to them under the order of the Tribunal and the judgment of this
3
COC 1008/23
Court; and hence, that his client is justified in having filed this Contempt Case. He concluded his submissions saying that, in any event, even assuming that the stand of the respondent can be accepted, that they are entitled to conduct a enquiry, it would not have been permissible in this case because, admittedly, the petitioner had retired from service by then. He thus prayed that further action against the respondents in this Contempt Case be taken forward.
3 . Sri.P.C.Sasidharan – learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that, this is not a case where his clients have acted in violation of the directions of this Court, but has been incapacitated from reinstating the petitioner consequent thereto, because he had retired, in the meanwhile, on 31.05.2023. He also made an adscititious argument that a Contempt of Court case like this is not maintainable, when the petitioner seeks to implement the directions of the Arbitration Court or the Tribunal; and that he ought to have moved an Execution Petition for such purpose.
4 . After asserting as afore, Sri.P.C.Sasidharan submitted that,
4
COC 1008/23
as evident from the chronology of events involved, this Court
delivered judgment only on 18.01.2023; against which, W.A.No.1069/2023 was preferred by his client well in time, but which was finally dismissed as being withdrawn on 12.06.2023, with liberty being reserved to them to attempt a review before this Court. He pointed out that, in the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court, it was recorded that the party respondent – the petitioner herein – will not press the hearing of this case for a period of two weeks, so as to enable his clients to move and argue the Review Petition; and added that the Review Petition was thereafter filed, but which was dismissed on 26.07.2023. He thus argued that, therefore, viewing it from any angle, it would not be possible for the petitioner to seek that this Contempt Case be prosecuted further, particularly because, in terms of the liberty reserved to his clients - both by the Arbitration Court and the Tribunal, which has been affirmed by this Court – he has been subsequently found guilty and dismissed from an anterior date from which he now seeks reinstatement. He thus prayed that this Contempt Cas e be dismissed.
5
COC 1008/23
5 . I have evaluated the afore r ival submissions very
carefully, on the touchstone of various materials available on recor d.
6 . The sole question before this Court in this case is whether
the respondents can be construed to have acted in deliberate defiance of the directions of this Court, in failing or refusing to reinstating the petitioner.
7 . No doubt, the judgment of this Court confirmed the order of the Tribunal, wherein, reinstatement of the petitioner was ordered and found necessary. However, the said judgment was delivered only on 18.01.2023; against which, W.A.No.1069/2023 was attempted by the respondents, which continued to be on the files of this Court until 12.06.2023, when it was withdrawn by them, with liberty being reserved to approach this Court with a petition for review. However, in the meanwhile, on 31.05.2023, concededly, the petitioner superannuated from service, thus rendering his reinstatement impossible.
8 . Apart from the issues relating to the manner in which the
litigation continued, the fact remains that, after 31.05.2023, reinstatement of the petitioner in service became impossible and all
6
COC 1008/23
which remained is a consideration whether he should have been deemed to have reinstated from the date ordered by the Tribunal; thus consequentially allowing him all benefits relating to his service. However, at this stage, an intervening event has happened, namely, that the respondents are stated to have been initiated de novo enquiry against the petitioner – whether it be competent or otherwise being not an issue this Court can consider at this stage – leading to an order dismissing him from service, from a date even anterior to the one he seeks reinstatement from.
9 . Therefore, even if this Court is to find that there has been any deliberate defiance by the respondents, in complying with
the directions in the judgment, in refusing to reinstate the petitioner, it would only be academic in nature because, no benefit would inure to him, when his dismissal remains in force from a date earlier than when he could have been so reinstated.
10. Obviously, therefore, the only course now open to the petitioner would be to challenge the subsequent order of dismissal and if he is to win in such process, then, as a corollary, he would be entitled to seek reinstatement from a date as ordered by the
7
COC 1008/23
Arbitration Court and confirmed by the Tribunal, with all consequent benefits. As long as the order of dismissal remains, even if this Court is to find in favour of the petitioner, it would be of no consequence.
For the afore reasons, I find no cause to continue this Contempt Case and therefore, close it; however, leaving full liberty to the petitioner to invoke every other remedy, including for the benefits of the order of reinstatement, as confirmed by this Court in the judgment, in the event the present order of dismissal against him is vacated or set aside through a process of law.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
RR
COC 1008/23
8
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1008/2023
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1True copy of the common judgment dated
12.06.2023 in WA No. 1069/2023 and
1070/2023
ANNEXURE R1(a)A true copy of the resolution of the
Managing Committee dated 09/10/2023
ANNEXURE R1(b)A true copy of the resolution of the
DisciplinarySubCommitteedated
10/10/2023
ANNEXURE R1(c)A true copy of the notice dated
13/10/2023 issued by the Disciplinary Sub
Committee to the petitioner
ANNEXURE R1(d)A true copy of the notice dated
17/10/2023 issued by the Disciplinary Sub
Committee to the petitioner
ANNEXURE R1(e). A true copy of the notice dated
21/10/2023 issued by the Disciplinary Sub
Committee to the petitioner
ANNEXURE R1(f)A true copy of the representation dated
26/10/2023 submitted by the petitioner to
the Chairman of Disciplinary Committee
ANNEXURE R1(g)A true copy of the notice dated
30/10/2023 issued by the Disciplinary Sub
Committee to the petitioner
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-A1True copy of the proceedings issued by
therespondentdated22.11.2023
No.138/2023-24
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(h)True copy of the order dated 5/1/2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents deliberately defied the directions in the WP(C) judgment by failing to reinstate the petitioner.
Whether the contempt case can proceed given the petitioner's superannuation and subsequent dismissal from an anterior date.
K.M.Ravi
Sri.Subheesh Krishnan
Sri.K.K.Vasu Nair
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court