Managing Director Kerala State Co-operative Consumer Federation Ltd., Ernakulam v. M.A. Paul

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE** **WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/20TH BHADRA, 1935** **OP(C).No. 2788 of 2013 (O) AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.13/2013 IN REVISION PETITION NO.6/2013 OF KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **---------------------------** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER:** **------------------------------------** **MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD., ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN SMT.K.PUSHPAVATHI** ## **RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:** **-----------------------------------------** **M.A.PAUL RESIDING AT MULAKKAL HOUSE HOUSE NO.47/21, TOLGATE ROAD, VADUTHALA POST, COCHIN.** **R1 BY ADV. P.P.JACOB** **THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **SD** ## **OP(C).No. 2788 of 2013 (O)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** ## **------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 10-6-2010 IN ARC 149/2008 PASSED BY THE CO OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE R.P.NO.6/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION BEARING I.A.NO.13/2013 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING EXT.P2. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-5-2013 IN IA.NO.13/2013 IN REVISION PETITION 6/2013 PASSED BY THE KERALA CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** ## **NIL** ## **// TRUE COPY //** ## **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **SD** A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. --------------------------------------O.P.(C).No.2788 OF 2013 --------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] September, 2013. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the society, and they challenge Ext.P4 order passed by the Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram refusing to condone the delay in filing the Revision Petition No.6/2013. The delay is 555 days. According to the petitioner, though the award was passed on 10.01.2010 the petitioner came to know about it only 04.02.2011. Thereafter, it was noticed that the entire files pertaining to the arbitration case was misplaced from the counsel's office. Therefore, the application could not be filed for obtaining the certified copy of the award. Thereafter, the file was reconstructed and in that process, the delay had occurred. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the factual situation involved in the matter came to the conclusion that, since the petitioner had knowledge about the passing of the award nothing prevented them from obtaining a certified copy within a specified **2** _O.P.(C).No.2788 OF 2013_ time and therefore the delay of merely three years for filing a revision petition cannot be condoned. Reference is also made to the judgment of this Court in _**Thajudeen Shameer v.Secretary, Costal Urban Co-operative Bank Limited [2004(1) KLT 909]**_ and _**Sarojini Amma v. Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank Ltd. [2005(3) KLT 655]**_ . 2. The petitioner contends that the Arbitration Court had decided the matter without properly considering the issues involved in it. Though a dispute was raised by the delinquent employee, he did not chose to adduce any evidence. The respondent had produced the domestic enquiry report and the same was marked as Ext.A8 without any objection. Therefore, there was no reason for the Arbitration Court to have refused to consider the findings in the enquiry report. The domestic enquiry was conducted after complying with the principles of natural justice. The arbitration court proceeded on the basis that the petitioner did not adduce any evidence regarding the enquiry. It is contended that, there is enough materials to show that the disciplinary action was properly taken and there is nothing on record to indicate that the enquiry was conducted without _O.P.(C).No.2788 OF 2013_ **3** complying with the principles of natural justice. 3. The Arbitration Court also directed refund of an amount of Rs.10,458 to the plaintiff with 12% interest per annum from 27/11/2006. 4. According to the petitioner, they have valid contentions in the revision which they have filed, especially in view of the fact that no attempt had been made by the Arbitration Court to verify the Enquiry Report and the findings thereon. That apart, the employee did not have a contention that the enquiry was vitiated by violation of principles of the natural justice. 5. It also borne out from the records that though a petition to condone delay had been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, no counter affidavit is filed by the respondent. That apart, on a perusal of the impugned orders, Ext.P1 and P3, I am of the view that the society should be given an opportunity to ventilate their grievances on merits and according to them the documents produced by itself would indicate that a proper disciplinary action had been taken in the matter. That apart, the petitioner has ventilated valid contentions in the revision petition _O.P.(C).No.2788 OF 2013_ **4** filed before the Tribunal, which is required to be considered on merits. It is true that there is delay of 555 day on the part of the petitioner in filing the revision petition. But that does not mean that the issue involved should not be decided on merits, especially when there is no specific limitation period for filing a revision. Whereas the judgments of this Court referred above would indicate that the revision has to be filed within a reasonable time and that does not mean that the Tribunal does not have the power to condone the delay. Having regard to the facts and circumstances involved in this matter, I am of the view that the delay in filing the revision can be condoned by imposing cost on the petitioner. In the result, I am of the view that Ext.P4 is liable to be set aside and the delay of 555 days in filing the revision petition can be condoned on terms so that matter can be decided on merits. 6. In the result this writ petition is disposed of as follows: i) Ext.P4 is set aside and the delay in filing the revision petition No.6/2013 is condoned on condition that the petitioner pays the respondent a sum of Rs.2,000/- as cost. ii) The petitioner shall also deposit an amount of Rs.10,458/- **5** _O.P.(C).No.2788 OF 2013_ with 12% interest per annum from 27/12/2006 in a nationalised bank by way of fixed deposit and fixed deposit receipt shall be produced before the Tribunal. - iii) The petitioner shall pay the cost to the counsel appearing for the respondent in this case within a period of 15 days from today and the security for the afore said amount shall also be furnished within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - iv) On the petitioner complying with the above conditions, the Tribunal shall take on record Revision Petition No.6/2013 and dispose of the same as early as possible and not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. sd/ ## A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE jm/ \\ TRUE COPY \\ PA TO JUDGE