## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM**
## **PRESENT:**
## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL**
**FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/14TH PHALGUNA, 1937**
## **WP(C).NO. 3922 OF 2013 (M)**
**--------------------------ID 14/2008 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI**
## **PETITIONER(S): -------------**
**1. N.P.GOVINDAN NAIR, SAUPARNIKA, ETTUMANUR P.O. KOTTAYAM UNDER TERMINATION FROM KSRTC STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K-141, ADAM TOWER, STAR JUNCTION KOTTAYAM - 686 001.**
**2. SALAMMA GEORGE, NANNAKUZHIYIL, KANAKKARI P.O. KOTTAYAM UNDER TERMINATION FROM KSRTC STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K-141, ADAM TOWER, STAR JUNCTION KOTTAYAM - 686 001.**
**BY ADVS.SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN SMT.R.SEEMA**
**RESPONDENT(S):**
**--------------**
**1. KSRTC STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K-41, ADAM TOWER, STAR JUNCTION KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**
**2. TH PRESIDENT, KSRTC STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K-41, ADAM TOWER, STAR JUNCTION KOTTAYAM - 686 001**
**3. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, 686 503**
**4. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 001.**
**BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL**
**THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:**
**DST**
## **WP(C).NO. 3922 OF 2013 (M)**
## **---------------------------**
## **APPENDIX**
## **==========**
## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : =======================**
**EXHIBIT.P1: TRUE COPY OF LETTER 22/02/2006. EXHIBIT.P2: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17/6/2006. EXHIBIT.P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01/03/2006. EXHIBIT.P4: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN REPLY DATED 22/03/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT.P5: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 07/11/2006 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P5(A): TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 31/01/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P6: TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT PART I AND II DATED 08/10/2007 EXHIBIT.P7: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DTED 14/01/2007 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P8: TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER OF 1ST PETITIONER DATED 07/12/2007. EXHIBIT.P9: TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 24/11/2007 SUBMITTED BY SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P10: TRUE COPY OF DISMISSAL ORDER DATED 07/12/2007. EXHIBIT.P11: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 17/01/2008 IN WPC NO.1987/08. EXHIBIT.P12: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NIL DATED 25/01/2008. EXHIBIT.P13: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 05/02/2008. EXHIBIT.P14: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 12/02/2008 SUBMITTED BY SECOND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P15: TRUE COPY OF APPEAL DATED 17/04/2008 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT.P16: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.E5 (VE5/08/ERK) 6724/2008 DATED 28/08/2008 OF THE VIGILANCE OFFICER. EXHIBIT.P17: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 29/07/2011 IN WPC.38094/10 (J). EXHIBIT.P18: TRUE COPY OF COMMON AWARD DATED 05/12/2012. EXHIBIT.P19: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 31/01/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY/PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. (CONTD... TO PAGE NO.2)**
## **WP(C).NO. 3922 OF 2013 (M) -:2:---------------------------**
**EXHIBIT.P19(A): TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 31/01/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY/PRESIDENT OF THE BANK. EXHIBIT.P20: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01/02/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT.P21: TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DT.9.11.12 IN ANC NO.118/08 EXHIBIT.P22: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE SECRETARY BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.**
**RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : ======================== EXHIBIT.R1(A): TRUE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS. EXHIBIT.R1(B) TRUE COPIES OF THE CONSOLIDATED CHARGES AGAINST THE PETITIONERS**
_**//TRUE COPY//**_
_**P.A. TO JUDGE**_
## **DST**
## **K. HARILAL, J.**
**= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.3922 of 2013**
**- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 4th day of March, 2016
## **J U D G M E N T**
The petitioners were the employees of the 1[st] respondent Co-operative Society and they were dismissed from their service on the disciplinary action, which eventually culminated into industrial dispute. Subsequently, that dispute was referred to Industrial Tribunal as ID No.17/08. After taking evidence on record, the Tribunal passed Ext.P18 award, directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioners in the service with effect from the date of dismissal; but, denied back wages and barred three increments, without cumulative effect. The legality and propriety of Ext.P18 is under challenged in this writ petition.
## **W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2013**
## **-: 2 :-**
2. Going by Ext.P18, it is seen that the respondent is a Co-operative Society, functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 _(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)_ and the petitioners were employees working under the 1[st] respondent and dispute was one between the society and its employees, falling under Section 69 of the Act. In the above view, the first point to be considered is, whether the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is maintainable under law.
3. This question was considered by a larger Bench of this Court in _**Chirayinkeezhu Service Cooperative Bank v. Santhosh**_ **[** 2015(4) KLT 163] and it was held as follows:
_Section 69(1) of the K.C.S. Act, even as it originally stood, concluded saying that “no court shall have jurisdiction.........” Section 100 of that Act from its enactment in 1969 is to the effect that “ no civil or revenue court” shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in that Act. The K.C.S. Act thus uses the terms 'court', 'civil_
## **W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2013**
## **-: 3 :-**
_court' and 'revenue court' in different sections of the legislation, particularly relating to exclusion of jurisdiction. When the Legislature uses such different terms in different parts of a statute, it has to be necessarily presumed that the Legislature intentionally did so. This is part of the legislative wisdom which the courts will presume while construing statutory provisions. Thus, the use of the word 'court' in the last part of sub-section 1 of Section 69 of the K.C.S. Act, even as it originally stood, clearly indicates that the said term was intended to exclude all 'courts', including civil courts and revenue courts from adjudicating on any matter falling under Section 69. That term 'court' in Section 69 has to be understood in the widest sense to mean an adjudicating body which performs functions of rendering definite decisions on the disputes between the parties. Therefore, the term 'court' in the last part of Section 69(1) of the K.C.S. Act, as it originally stood, has to to be understood as an exclusion of all courts, including the civil courts and revenue courts, from adjudicating upon any dispute which falls within Section 69 of that Act. Disputes that fall under Section 69 stand wholly excluded from adjudication by 'courts', whatever be its nature. Reverting to Section 100 of the K.C.S. Act, it has to be emphasized that what stands excluded from civil courts and revenue courts by the operation of that provision will take in those barred under Section 69 as well. But, the bar created under Section 69 is not_
## **W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2013**
## **-: 4 :-**
_thereby confined to civil courts and revenue courts. It applies to all courts of whatever quality, content and jurisdiction they have. To assume to the contrary would be to treat the bar of jurisdiction created by Section 69 to be superfluous. Even under the provisions of Section 69 read with Section 100 of the K.C.S Act as it stood from the inception of that legislation, there was clear exclusion of jurisdiction of all other courts including the labour courts._
4. In the light of the above decision, it is seen that the impugned award passed by the Industrial Tribunal is a nullity as the Tribunal was not vested with the jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent. Consequently, Ext.P18 will stand quashed. I make it clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent resorting to proper remedies as provided under the Act. Since, this writ petition, challenging Ext.P18 was pending before this Court, the petitioner is allowed to seek proper remedies under Section 69 of the Act, within a period of
## **W.P.(C) No. 3922 of 2013**
## **-: 5 :-**
three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and in that event, the Arbitration Court is directed to consider the ARC on merits, notwithstanding the delay.
This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** DST //True copy// P.A. To Judge
