K. J. Dileep v. The Post, Telecom & BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd and Others; Jitha G. K. v. Kottayam District Post, Telecom and BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd and Others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 11292 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` K.J.DILEEP, AGED 24 YEARS, SECRETARY, POST, TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.K.343, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001. ``` ``` BY ADV G.HARIHARAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - `1 JITHA G.K., NIRANJANI HOUSE, NATTAKOM, PALLAM.P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686007.` - `2 THE POST,TELECOM & BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET LTD.NO.K 343, KOTTTAYAM, PIN-686001.` - `3 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, POST,TELECOM & BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.K 343, KOTTAYAM,PIN-686001.` - `4 THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001.` ``` BY ADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM O.D.SIVADAS ADV.JOSHY THANIKAMATTAM -GP ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).17835/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 2 ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 12[TH] DAY OF JULY 2022 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 17835 OF 2022`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` JITHA G. K., AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. K.N. JAYACHANDRAN, RESIDING AT NIRANJANI HOUSE, NATTAKOM VILLAGE, PALLOM KARA, PALLOM P.O., KOTTAYAM TALUK, PIN-686007. ``` ``` BY ADV LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT POST, TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. K. 343, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM-686001. ``` ``` 2JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, CIVIL STATION P. O., KOTTAYAM-686001. ``` ``` 3THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 ``` ``` 4THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE SERVICE EXAMINATION BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, RAIL OVER BRIDGE, PAZHAVANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001. ``` ``` 5K. J. DILEEP, AGED 25 YEARS, KRUPA NIVAS HOUSE, PUTHUSSERY, PALAKKADU DISTRICT, NOW HAVING THE ADDRESS, SECRETARY, POST, TELECOM AND BSNL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO. K. 343, KOTTAYAM-1. ``` ``` BY ADV S.L.SYLAJA SRI.JOSHY THANICKAMATTOM ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.07.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).11292/2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 3 ## **`JUDGMENT`** The petitioner in WP(C)No.17835/2022 – Smt.Jitha G.K., is stated to be working as an Accountant in the services of the 1st respondent – Kottayam District Post, Telecom and BSNL Employees Co-operative Society Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Society’ for short) and aspires to be promoted as its Secretary. She says that when her claim was not considered by the Society, she was constrained to file ARC No.56/2021 before the Cooperative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Arbitration Court’ for short), which is still pending. 2. Smt.Jitha G.K. says that, in the meanwhile, the Arbitration Court issued order dated 19.01.2022 on her application, whereby, payment of salary to Sri.K.J.Dileep – who is the petitioner in WP(C)No.11292/2022 – has been interdicted. She says that, however, an objection was raised by Sri.K.J.Dileep, as also the Society, that the ARC is not maintainable because, the Feeder Category Rules with respect to the posts of the latter has WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 4 been amended and approved by the jurisdictional Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, through order dated 22.06.2018; and therefore, that the Arbitration Court cannot consider its validity. She says that, hence, she has been constrained to approach this Court through this Writ Petition, challenging the said Feeder Category Rules, marked as Ext.P1. 3. It transpires that even before Smt.Jitha G.K. had approached this Court, the aforementioned Sri.K.J.Dileep filed WP(C)No.11292/2022, assailing the aforementioned order of the Arbitration Court dated 19.01.2022, producing it as Ext.P5, seeking a relief that the ARC be declared to be untenable and incapable of further prosecution, because the Feeder Category Rules had already been amended, providing for appointment of the Secretary through direct recruitment. 4. I have heard Sri.G.Hariharan – learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.11292/2022; Sri.Liji J. Vadakedom – learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.17835/2022; Sri.O.D.Sivadas – learned counsel appearing for the Society in both cases and Sri.Joshy Thanickamattom – learned Government WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 5 Pleader appearing on behalf of the official respondents. 5. As I have said above, Smt.Jitha G.K. filed the aforementioned ARC, which is still pending. All the orders impugned and contentions raised before this Court in these two Writ Petitions are those which have emanated from the said proceedings. The question whether the Feeder Category Rules is in conflict with the various earlier declarations of this Court, including in Mattanchery Mahajanik Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd, Kochi and Another v. Rajendran M. and Others [2016 (2) KHC 781] and Kizhuvilam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd No.2405 and Another v. C.R.Ajayakumar and Others [2020 (1) KLT 206], is certainly an aspect which the Arbitration Court can consider, while dealing with the contentions relating to its validity. 6. This is because, whatever be the nature of the Feeder Category Rules that might have been brought in, if the declarations of this Court override the same in any manner, on the touchstone of Rule 185 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘KCS Rules for short), they are matters which the Arbitration Court must consider on its merits; WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 6 and I do not think that this Court will be justified in acceding to either of the prayers in these Writ Petitions, to stop such proceedings at this juncture. This is more so because, whatever be the decision to be taken by the Arbitration Court, the parties will definitely obtain appropriate statutory remedies. 7. That said, when I examine Ext.P5 order issued by the Arbitration Court in WP(C)No.11292/2022, it is clear that payment of salary to the petitioner therein – namely Sri.K.J.Dileep, has been interdicted only as an interim measure. Sri.O.D.Sivadas – learned counsel for the Society affirmed that the ARC is now being proceeded with and is in the last stage of its consideration. 8. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the ARC must be allowed to continue, leading to appropriate orders being issued therein; and that any intervention at this stage by this Court would be impermissible, including on the validity of Ext.P5. Resultantly, I dispose of these Writ Petitions, leaving open all contentions of the parties to be impelled by them before the Arbitration Court; with a consequential direction to the said Court to dispose of the ARC, after following due procedure and WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 7 affording necessary opportunity of being heard to both sides, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, all contentions of the rival parties, including the validity of the new Feeder Category Rules, are left open to be impelled by them, either before the Arbitration Court or before any other Forum, including this Court, in future, if it becomes so warranted. ``` Sd/- ``` ``` RR ``` ``` DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ``` WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 8 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17835/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 ``` ``` Exhibit P1THE COPY OF THE SUB RULE REGARDING PROMOTION DATED 22.6.2018 AS APPROVED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-JOINT REGISTRAR. Exhibit P2THE COPY OF THE ARC NO. 56/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT. ``` ``` Exhibit P2(a)THE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN EXHIBIT P2 PROCEEDINGS. ``` ``` Exhibit P3THE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 3.12.2021. Exhibit P4THE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 19.1.2022 IN ARC NO.56/2021. ``` WPC 11292/22 & 17835/22 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11292/2022`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE ARC N.56/2021 FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE FEEDER CATEGORY SUB RULES APPROVED BY THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES. ``` ``` Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 3.07.2019 Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION DATED 23.02.2022 BY THE PETITIONER IN ARC NO.56 OF 2021 PENDING BEFORE ARBITRATION COURT. Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.12.2021 PASSED BY THE ARBITRATION COURT. Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOCIETY. ```