Dismissed

George Philip v. the Joint Registrar General

Kerala HC19 Jul 2024WP(C)/850/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a former bank employee, sought to quash an attachment order passed during arbitration proceedings concerning excess gratuity. The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since the dispute falls under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and arbitration is pending, the petitioner must approach the Arbitrator for relief.

What the court decided

AI extract

George Philip Vs the Joint Registrar General — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 28TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 850 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE PHILIP, AGED 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT KAIPPALLIMYALIL, ERAVIMANDALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686613.

¶8

BY ADVS. S.JAYAKRISHNAN S.PARAMESWARA PRASAD

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686001

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686141, PIN - 686141

¶12

3 THE MANJOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.K73, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MANJOOR P.O., KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686603

¶13

4 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE MANJOOR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO K73, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MANJOOR PO, KURUPPANTHARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686603

¶14

BY ADVS. VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE ALBIN A. JOSEPH(K/1299/2020) ANIMA M., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P.(C) No.850/2023

: 2 :

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of Jul y, 2024

¶20

The petitioner, who is a former employee of the 3^rd respondent-Co-operative Bank, is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P4 order and to direct respondents 3 and 4 to release forthwith the Fixed Deposit in the name of the petitioner.

¶21

The petitioner states that he was paid an amount of ₹24,90,467/- being his full eligible gratuity. This amount was paid by the Life Insurance Co-operation of India under the Employees Group Gratuity Scheme. The audit party, who audited the account of the Bank raised an objection and thereupon the petitioner was directed to refund an amount of ₹4,90,467/- with interest. The said amount purportedly represents the amount paid in excess of

¶22

W.P.(C) No.850/2023

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

statutory limit of gratuity. By Ext.P2 judgment, recovery proceedings were quashed by this Court following the dictum laid down by a Full Bench of this Court.

¶25

The petitioner submitted a request before the 4^th respondent to release the Fixed Deposit. The 4^th respondent-Board of Directors took a decision to return four deposits and retain one deposit for the reason that an amount of ₹94,300/- is due to the Bank from the petitioner. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent filed an Arbitration Case before the 2^nd respondent and obtained Ext.P4 attachment. The petitioner submits that the 3^rd respondent has no authority to freeze the account of the petitioner. The action of the 3^rd respondent is extremely illegal and unsustainable.

¶26

The petitioner would contend that Ext.P4 order was passed by the 1^st respondent without hearing the petitioner. The 1^st respondent has no authority under law to quash Ext.P4 order during the pendency of Ext.P3 petition. Therefore, Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.850/2023

¶28

: 4 :

¶29

The 3^rd respondent resisted the writ petition filing

¶30

a counter affidavit. On behalf of the Bank, it is submitted that Ext.P4 which is sought to be quashed is a proceedings in ARC No.2199/2022. ARC being a legal proceeding, the petitioner has an option to appear before the Arbitrator and contest the same and obtain relief. Ext.P4 would reveal that the amount claimed is ₹99,299.33 as on 29.08.2022.

¶31

On behalf of the 3^rd respondent, it is further submitted that the writ petition is targeted against the attempt of the Society to get back the excess amount paid by the Life Insurance Corporation. The Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent pointed out that the arbitration proceedings have been validly initiated and an interim order has been passed. Therefore, the petitioner can approach the Arbitration Court.

¶32

Going by the Scheme of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, disputes between the past employees and society has to be adjudicated by Arbitration. The writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed,

¶33

W.P.(C) No.850/2023

¶34

: 5 :

¶35

contended the counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the Bank has paid ₹24,90,467/- to the petitioner. On the basis of objections raised by the audit party, the petitioner was directed to refund ₹4,90,467/-. An Arbitration case was filed before the learned Arbitrator. The Arbitrator has passed Ext.P4 order directing the Secretary to the 2^nd respondent-Bank to freeze an amount of ₹2 lakhs, of the petitioner. This was in view of the claim raised in the Arbitration case.

¶38

It is to be noted that the Bank has invoked Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and has approached the Arbitrator, who is the competent to decide any dispute between the Society and members of the Society. The arbitration proceedings are pending. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P4, it is for the petitioner to

¶39

W.P.(C) No.850/2023

¶40

: 6 :

¶41

approach the Arbitrator and take necessary steps to vacate the attachment order.

¶42

As the arbitration proceedings are pending, I do

¶43

not find it proper to adjudicate the issue in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Giving

¶44

liberty to the petitioner to approach the Arbitrator for any orders varying Ext.P4, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH

JUDGE

W.P.(C) No.850/2023

: 7 :

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 850/2023

¶52

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶53

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED
	02.06.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
	30.06.2022 IN W.P. (C) NO. 7314/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF ARC NO. 2199/2022 FILED
	BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
	2NDRESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF ORDER AEL/1706/2022
	DATED 14.09.2022 PASSED BY THE
	1STRESPONDENT
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED
	29.09.2022 IN CONTEMPT OF COURTS CASE
	NO. 1419/2022 IN W.P. (C) NO.
	7314/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF TREATMENT RECORDS ISSUED
	BY PUSHAGIRI MEDICAL COLLEGE
	HOSPITAL, THIRUVALLA AND MAR SLEEVA MEDICITY, PALA
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
	07.12.2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1STRESPONDENT

¶54

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶55

Exhibit R3 (a) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.C.NO.53/2022 FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN BEFORE THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ETTUMANOOR DATED 07.01.2022. Exhibit R3 (b) TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THIS RESPONDENT IN G.C.NO.53/2022 FILED BEFORE THE DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER, ETTUMANOOR DATED 16.05.2022 (WITHOUT DOCUMENTS).

George Philip v. the Joint Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

George Philip v. the Joint Registrar General

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Vaidyanathan Vs Union of India

Manoj C v Vs Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Societies ( General ) Thrissur

Vidyasagar Panicker, Vs the District Collector

Mansoor Vs the Tirur Sahakarana Karshika Grama Vikasana Bank Ltd. .

Global Building Materials, Vs State of Kerala

E.N. Krishnankutty Vs Kerala Cooperative Ombudsman