:null

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR** ## **WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938** ## **WP(C).No. 32136 of 2016 (N)** **----------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-------------** **1. SREEJITH.S, S/O.KUNJIRAMAM, AGED 35 YEARS, SREENILAYAM, NADAKKUTHAZHA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **2. SARATH.C.H, JIJISHALAYAM, PONMERI PARAMBIL, VILLIAPPALLY, VATAKARA.** **3. K.BABU, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, ONCHIYAM P.O., CHOMBALA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **4. HARIKRISHNAN, GEETHALAYAM, ERAMALA, ORKKATTERI VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **5. MAHESH BABU N.P, NEELAM PARAMBATH, CHAMBALA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **6. SHAHAJAHASAN, THAZHE KOOMULLI, ORKKATTERI, VATAKARA, KOZHIODE DSITRICT.** **7. AMAL DEV, MUTHIRAKKALIL HOUSE, PATHUPPANAM, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **8. NIDHEESH A.K.,NIDHESH NIVAS, MEMUNDA, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **9. SHAJINESH K.K, KOLOTH KIZHAKKEKUNI, VILLIAPPALLY P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.** **10. DHANESH.C.,S/O.RAJAN, CHANDRANGIYIL HOUSE, KURINJALIYOD P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** **11. SEENA.K.K., W/O.PAVITHRAN, AGED 37 YEARS, MARAMVEETTIL HOUSE, CHOMPALA P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** **12. INDRAJITH, S/O.CHANDRAN, 28 YEARS, KOTTARATH HOUSE, VYKILISSERI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** ## **WP(C).No. 32136 of 2016 (N)** ## **----------------------------** **13. SAJITHA, D/O.KUNHIKKANNAN, 41 YEARS, THAZHEPUTHOOR HOUSE, MEMUNDA P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** **14. NITHASHA,W/O.BALAKRISHNAN, 30 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBATH HOUSE, VILLYAPPILLI P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** **15. JISHA, D/O.BHARATHAN, 31 YEARS, NANDANAM HOUSE, MANALILTHAZHA, PUTHUPANAM P.O., VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** **16. SEENA.K, D/O.PAVITHRAN, PEEDIKAKANDIYIL HOUSE, KEEZHAL P.O., KUTTOTH, VATAKARA, KOZHIKODE.** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.** **2. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE-673 004.** **3. CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN) KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.** **4. BATAKARA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED. F-1264 BADAKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-673 101.** **5. PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR BATAKARA CO-OPERATIVE RURAL BANK LIMITED. F-1264, BADAKARA - 673 101.** - **R4 & R5 BY SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9-12.2016, THE COURT ON 21-12-2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).No. 32136 of 2016 (N)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS** ## **-----------------------** - **EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 3.7.2012.** - **EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 29.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE 8TH PETITIONER DATED 27.1.2014.** - **EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.1.10.2011 ISSUED BY THE CONVENOR ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE.** - **EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE 12TH PETITIONER 21.1.2015.** - **EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS 13 TO 15 DATED 1.10.2015.** - **EXHIBIT-P6(A): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF APPOINTMENT OF THE 16TH PETITIONER DATED 30.11.2015.** - **EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.6.2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ARC 44/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE ARBITRATION COURT.** - **EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM APPLICATION SEEKING INTERIM ORDERS FILED AS IA 63/2016 IN ARC 44/2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 63/2016 IN ARC 44/2016 DATED 5.7.2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.7.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION 24181/2016 DATED 26.7.2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P13: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.CRP(2) 4207/2016 DATED 24.8.2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P14: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 6.9.2016 IN IA 80/2016.** - **EXHIBIT-P15: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.18/91 DATED 7.6.1991 ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES.** **WP(C).No. 32136 of 2016 (N) ----------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:** **----------------------EXT.R4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.6.2016 BY WHICH THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE WAS REPLACED BY A DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR. EXT.R4(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **dlk** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **W.P.(C) No.32136 of 2016** ## **-----------------------------------------------** ## **Dated 21[st] December, 2016.** ## **J U D G M E N T** Ext.P13 order of the second respondent is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioners also seek directions to the fifth respondent to give effect to Exts.P10 and P14 orders of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. 2. The relevant facts are the following : The fourth respondent is a co-operative society ('the society') registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act ('the Act'). The society is engaged mainly in banking business. It has twelve branches. In addition, the society is running one whole sale ration depot, five retail ration shops, one Neethi medical store and one manure depot. As per the approved staff pattern, there are 10 posts of Salesman/Peon and 21 posts of Attender in the society. The society was under the management of an administrative committee from August, WPC 32136 of 2016 2 2011. When the administrative committee took over the management of the society, there were eight vacant posts of Salesman/Peon and seven vacant posts of Attender. Petitioners 1 to 3 and 10 were appointed in the society as Salesman/Peon on 03.07.2012. Petitioners 4 to 7 and 11 were appointed later in the society as Salesman/Peon on 29.11.2013. The 8[th] petitioner was appointed thereafter as Salesman/Peon on 27.01.2014. The 9[th] petitioner was appointed in the society as Data Entry Operator on 01.10.2011. The 12[th] petitioner was appointed in the society as Salesman/Peon on 21.01.2015. Petitioners 13 to 15 were appointed thereafter as Salesman/Peon on 01.10.2015. The 16[th] petitioner was appointed thereafter as Salesman/Peon on 30.11.2015. Among the petitioners, petitioners 1 to 8 and 10 to 16 were appointed on daily wage basis and the 9[th] petitioner was appointed on contract basis. All the petitioners were appointed by the administrative committee of the society, of which the appointment of the 9[th] petitioner was after obtaining the permission of the concerned Joint Registrar of Co-operative WPC 32136 of 2016 3 Societies. Among the petitioners who were appointed as Salesman/Peon, some were working as Salesman/Peon and the remaining were working as Attender. The vacant posts of Salesman/Peon and Attender in the society are yet to be filled up by regular recruitment, for, there is no elected managing committee in office in the society. While so, on 26.03.2016, the administrative committee of the society was replaced by a Part Time Administrator. The Part Time Administrator, on taking charge of the society, disengaged the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the Part Time Administrator has no authority to disengage them, especially the 9[th] petitioner, who was appointed after obtaining prior permission of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioners have, therefore, approached the Co-operative Arbitration Court invoking Section 69 of the Act, seeking directions to the society to permit them to continue in the service until regular appointments are made by the society. Ext.P8 is the plaint in the proceedings instituted by the petitioners before Co-operative Arbitration Court as A.R.C.No.44 of 2016. In the said proceedings, the petitioners WPC 32136 of 2016 4 preferred I.A.No.63 of 2016 also for an interim order restraining the society from denying employment and wages to them and to permit them to continue in the service of the society till regular appointments are made. Ext.P9 is the application preferred by the petitioners in this connection. In Ext.P9 application, the Co-operative Arbitration Court passed Ext.P10 interim order restraining the society from denying employment and wages to the petitioners till regular appointments are made by the elected committee. Ext.P10 order was passed on 5.7.2016. Since Ext.P10 order has not been complied with by the society, the petitioners preferred Ext.P11 representation before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies requesting him to issue appropriate directions to the society to comply with Ext.P10 order. There was no action on Ext.P11 representation. The petitioners, therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.24181 of 2016. As per Ext.P12 judgment, this Court directed the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take appropriate action on Ext.P11 representation. Pursuant to Ext.P12 judgment, Ext.P13 order has been passed by the WPC 32136 of 2016 5 Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, holding that the petitioners are persons engaged contrary to the provision contained in Section 33(2) of the Act and the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies as Circular No.18/1991; that the society is not facing any operational difficulties even after the disengagement of the petitioners and that therefore, the decision of the society in disengaging the petitioners is in order. In other words, the finding of the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Societies is that the society is not liable to give effect to Ext.P10 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. It is seen that thereafter on 6.9.2016, the Co-operative Arbitration Court made Ext.P10 order absolute. Ext.P14 is the order passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court in this connection. According to the petitioners, it is the duty of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies to see that orders issued by the Cooperative Arbitration Court are given effect to by the Cooperative Societies under his jurisdiction. The petitioners are, therefore, aggrieved by Ext.P13 order. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the WPC 32136 of 2016 6 society, justifying its stand in not complying with the direction issued by the Co-operative Arbitration Court in Exts.P10 and P14 orders. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the administrative committee in power of the society is not empowered to make appointments; that there was no administrative exigencies for making appointments in the society; that the petitioners have been appointed without following any selection process; that the petitioners have no right to continue in the service of the society and that the continuance of the petitioners are not essential for the functioning of the society. It is also contended by the society in the counter affidavit that on receipt of Ext.P10 interim order of the Arbitration Court, a counter statement has been filed in the proceedings on behalf of the society; that the Arbitration Court was though appraised of the facts of the case when the matter came up for further hearing on 06.09.2016, no order was passed in open court and that Ext.P14 order is an order issued later. It is further contended by the society in the counter affidavit that Exts.P10 and P14 orders are not orders which can WPC 32136 of 2016 7 be enforced as the petitioners have been disengaged long prior to the order. 4. On 05.10.2016, when the writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order directing that if Ext.P10 order is still in force, the same shall be given effect to by the society. The said interim order has also not been complied with by the society. The petitioners, therefore, preferred Con. Case No.1819 of 2016 alleging willful disobedience of the interim order dated 05.10.2016. When the Contempt Case came up for hearing on 11.11.2016, the learned counsel for the respondents therein submitted that a petition has already been filed by the respondents in the writ petition for vacating the interim order dated 05.10.2016. In the light of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the respondents in the Contempt Case, the writ petition was also ordered to be listed for hearing and both the matters have accordingly come up for hearing together. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for WPC 32136 of 2016 8 respondents 4 and 5. 6. It is beyond dispute that the petitioners have approached the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies for appropriate directions to the society to give effect to Ext.P10 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. As such, the only question that is required to be decided is whether Ext.P10 order is liable to be given effect to by the society. 7. The Co-operative Arbitration Court is a mechanism provided in the Act for resolution of the disputes specified in Section 69 of the Act. The parties to such disputes are, therefore, bound by the decision of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The society has no case that the dispute raised by the petitioners before the Co-operative Arbitration Court is not a dispute that could be raised before the Cooperative Arbitration Court. They have also no case that the Co-operative Arbitration Court has no authority to pass interim orders. They have also not challenged Ext.P10 or Ext.P14 orders before the appropriate higher forum. Instead, they contend that the Co-operative Arbitration Court should not have WPC 32136 of 2016 9 passed an order in the nature of Ext.P10 on the given facts, and therefore, the same cannot be given effect to. They also contend that Ext.P10 order is not one which can be enforced since the petitioners have already been disengaged. It is trite that even incorrect orders are liable to be given effect to once it attains finality. As far as the interim orders are concerned, if a party to the proceedings maintains that the same is wrong or against the rules or implementation of which is neither possible nor feasible, the remedy open to them is to move the court for vacating the same or for clarification, as the case may be. If the interim order is not vacated or clarified as requested for, it is for the party to take up the matter before the appropriate higher forum. This principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad (102) v. Ashok Khot** [(2006)5 SCC 1)], the relevant passage from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the said case reads thus: “Respect should always be shown to the court. If any party is aggrieved by the order which in its opinion is wrong WPC 32136 of 2016 10 or against rules or implementation is neither practicable nor feasible, it should approach the court. This had been done and this Court after consideration had rejected the IA long before.” Disobedience of orders issued by judicial institutions strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law being the foundation of a democratic society and judiciary being the guardian of rule of law, the dignity and authority of the judicial institutions have to be respected and protected at all costs. These principles are also reiterated by the Apex Court in **T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad's case** _(supra)_ . No person is entitled to contend that an order which is binding on him is incorrect or illegal and therefore, he/she will not obey the same. Likewise, no person is entitled to ignore an order of the court on the ground that the enforcement of the same is neither possible nor feasible. Coming to the stand of the society that Ext.P10 order is one which cannot be enforced since the petitioners have been disengaged, it is necessary to refer to the operative portion of the said order, which reads thus : WPC 32136 of 2016 11 “Heard the Counsels for the petitioners/plaintiffs. I have carefully gone through the plaint as well as the affidavit filed by one K.Babu on behalf himself and other 15 petitioners/plaintiffs. On going through the plaint as well as the affidavit and the petition a prima-facie case is made out in this case. So, I hereby issue a temporary prohibitory order restraining the 1st and 2nd defendant from denying the employment and wages to the petitioners/plaintiffs till regular recruitments and appointments are made by the elected Board of Directors of the Bank, for a period of two months from today. Issue urgent notice to the defendants and posted the case for further hearing on 6.9.2016.” The fact that the petitioners were disengaged by the society is not in dispute. The disengagement of the petitioners was the cause of action for the petitioners to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court for relief. From the plain words used in Ext.P10, there is no room for any doubt that the Co-operative Arbitration Court has restrained the society from denying employment to the petitioners till appointments are made on regular basis by the elected managing committee of the society, indicating that the petitioners shall be continued to be engaged. The said fact is evident from Ext.P14 order of the Co-operative Arbitration Court which was rendered after the WPC 32136 of 2016 12 society has filed their interim statement in Ext.P9 application and after hearing the society. The operative portion of Ext.P14 order reads thus : “Heard both sides. The prohibitory order passed by this Court will continue until further orders.” I have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the society is bound to give effect to Ext.P10 order by engaging the petitioners on the same lines on which they were engaged earlier, until further orders are passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court. 8. Coming to Ext.P13 order, as indicated above, the only issue arose before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in Ext.P11 representation preferred by the petitioners was whether the society is bound to give effect to Ext.P10 order. The Joint Registrar has not addressed the said issue in Ext.P13 order. Instead, the Joint Registrar has examined the correctness of Ext.P10 order and held that Ext.P10 order is not liable to be given effect to. The Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies has absolutely no jurisdiction to sit in judgment over the decisions of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. Ext.P13 WPC 32136 of 2016 13 order is, therefore, _per se_ illegal. Further, I do not think that a person holding the office of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies in the State who is the head of the Department as far as a District is concerned, is unaware of the fact that he cannot sit in judgment over a decision of the Co-operative Arbitration Court. If he is unaware of the said basic principle, I have no hesitation to hold that he is unfit to be the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies. I would have justified the conduct of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, had he directed the parties to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court for appropriate clarification. I have, therefore, all reasons to hold that Ext.P13 is an order passed for extraneous considerations, for, there is no reason for this Court to infer as to why the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies shall be concerned about the affairs of a co-operative society even to the extent of flouting the orders of the court. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, Ext.P13 order is quashed and the Part Time Administrator of the society is directed to give effect to Ext.P10 order forthwith by engaging WPC 32136 of 2016 14 the petitioners. It is made clear that such engagements will be subject to further orders to be passed by the Co-operative Arbitration Court or by other superior forums. ## **Sd/-** ## **P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.** tgs (true copy)