Rajesh R. v. The Presiding Officer, Kerala Co-operative Tribunal; The Presiding Officer, Co-operative Arbitration Court (Southern); SASTHAMCOTTA Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Amit Rawal
Judgment Date: 2021-10-06
Court Decision / Holding: WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021 dismissed; Tribunal’s reversal of Arbitration Court’s award upheld, with no interference by the High Court.
Final Disposition: Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rajesh R. (petitioner)

Respondents

The Presiding Officer, Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, Jawahar Saha… (THYCAUD)
The Presiding Officer, Co-operative Arbitration Court (Southern), Kaithamukku
SASTHAMCOTTA Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• B. Ashok Shenoy
• C. G. Preetha
• P. S. Gireesh
• Arjun R. Naik

Counsels for Respondents

• GP Sri Jimmy George

Case Synopsis & Summary

Rajesh R., a driver employed by the SASTHAMCOTTA Primary Co-operative Bank on daily wages after a 2016 relieving order, challenged the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal's 2021 reversal of an Arbitration Court award directing his regularisation. The Arbitration Court had held that, despite the absence of a formal regular vacancy, the petitioner’s long service on daily wages and a 2016 resolution recommending absorption warranted regularisation, a posture supported by contemporaneous letters and orders (Exts. P6–P7). The Tribunal reversed the award, invoking State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (AIR 2016 SC 1866) and Rule 182(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, holding that posts below junior clerk must be filled through examination/interview and that temporary employment cannot be continued indefinitely. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there was an established history of absorption based on earlier recommendations and that regularisation was permissible in the absence of a formal policy. The respondents contended that regularisation cannot occur by back-door methods without a policy, and that the vacancy process and statutory rules must be observed. Upon hearing, the High Court found no jurisdictional error, illegality, or travesty of justice in the Tribunal’s reasoning and dismissed the writ petition, noting the lack of a governing policy and the proper channels for regularisation in co-operative societies.

Provisions of Law Cited

Rule 182(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies RulesArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Umadevi doctrine: regularisation cannot be by back-door or outside established policy; absence of policy impacts regularisation; absorption through regular process is required.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contended that he was engaged on daily wages for a long period with a history of executive resolutions recommending absorption; there was no formal policy or regular vacancy process thwarting his regularisation; absence of policy should not bar regularisation given the long service and prior recommendations.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents argued that regularisation cannot be effected without a formal policy, regular vacancy, and proper competitive selection; reliance on Umadevi is appropriate to discourage backdoor absorption and to emphasize adherence to Rule 182(5) and the absence of a policy for regularisation.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi	AIR 2016 SC 1866	Positive	Cited to discuss the limits of regularisation of temporary employees in absence of policy and to caution against regularisation by back-door means; used as a controlling reference in evaluating the Tribunal’s order.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 14TH ASWINA, 1943** ## **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** ## **PETITIONER/S:** RAJESH R. AGED 45 YEARS SON OF RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, BINDU BHAVANAM, MANAMPUZHA P.O, KADAMPANAD SOUTH, KOLLAM, PIN-691553. BY ADVS. B.ASHOK SHENOY C.G.PREETHA P.S.GIREESH ARJUN R NAIK ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 THE PREIDING OFFICER, KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. 2 THE PRESIDING OFFICER CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (SOUTHERN), KAITHAMUKKU PETTA ROAD, NALUMUKKU, PAZHAVANGADI, KAITHAMUKKU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024. 3. SASTHAMCOTTA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD. NO.Q 373, SASTHAMCOTTA PO, KOLLAM 690 521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. GP SRI JIMMY GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -2- ## **JUDGMENT** (Dated this the 6[th] day of October, 2021) Challenge has been laid to the judgment of the Cooperative Tribunal dated 13.9.2021 (Ext.P9) rendered in Appeal No.42 of 2021, preferred by the 3[rd] respondent Society against the award dated 3.3.2021 of the Arbitration court rendered in A.R.C.No.45 of 2017. 2. Succinctly, the facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that in pursuance to the notification by the Society, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of driver. The petitioner was interviewed and after having undergone the driving test, was selected on temporary basis. The petitioner was issued the relieving order dated 28.8.2016, after having undergone training. The petitioner continued to render the service as driver. However, in the month of August 2015, there was a vacancy of regular post of driver on account of retirement. Steps were taken for absorption of the petitioner by **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -3- regularising the service. The 3[rd] respondent, vide resolution No.VI dated 16.1.2016 (Ext.P6) opined to absorb the petitioner on regular service, by regularising his service on receipt of order from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Joint Registrar Co-operative society, vide letter dated 17.3.2016 vide Ext.P7 addressed to the District Collector for recommendation of regularisation. But nothing happened and in the meantime, an advertisement was published by the Society inviting applications for the post of Driver on regular basis. It is in that background, the petitioner preferred A.R.C.No.45 of 2017 before the Arbitration Court. The Arbitration court, after detailed consideration of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record, found that the society had rightly, by resolution ibid recommended to absorb the petitioner, as he had been rendering service on temporary basis since long and allowed the petition. But the 3[rd] respondent challenged the same and the Tribunal reversed the award by taking into **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -4- consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **State of Karnataka** v. **Umadevi** (AIR 2016 SC 1866). The order of the Tribunal is not in consonance with the provisions of Rule 182(5) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, as the posts below the rank of junior clerk are to be filled up by examination and interview and not on any other mode. Temporary employment cannot be permitted to be continued for infinite period. In fact, the Society ought to have taken up the matter with the Government for coming out with the policy for regularisation of the temporary workmen discharging different duties in respect of co-operative societies. The petitioner cannot be thus faulted with in not giving regular employment as his service is found to be in order. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paperbook and of the view that there is no force in the matter. 4. It is a matter of record that appointment of the petitioner was not against the regular vacancy as he was **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -5- given employment on daily wages. Continuation on daily wages, though have been deprecated many cases, but in the decision rendered in **Umadevi** (supra), it has been held that in the absence of any policy, the benefit of regularisation vis-a-vis would have a better chance for appointment. Even otherwise, it tantamount to absorption on regular basis through back doors. It is not the case that the petitioner service have been dispensed with but he is continuing as a driver. If at all the respondents had to fill up the regular vacancies, regular process of advertisement could have been initiated permitting the petitioner also to apply, if he had become over-aged. 5. The order of the Tribunal, in my view, is based upon such rationality and does not want any interference under Article 226 of the constitution of India. Even otherwise, the provisions of sub-section 5 of Rule 182 would also not come to the rescue of the petitioner as the initial appointment though was after the interview, but on temporary basis. I do not find any jurisdictional error, **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -6- illegality or travesty of justice in the order of the Tribunal reversing the order of the Arbitration Court. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- **AMIT RAWAL, JUDGE** . dl/ **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -7- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20817/2021** |PETITIONER EXHIBITS|| |---|---| |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE D NO.03/2017-18| ||DATED 18.04.2017 ISSUED BY 3RD| ||RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER.| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF LETTER D NO.38/2016-17| ||DATED 10.08.2016 ISSUED BY 3RD| ||RESPONDENT TO PRINCIPAL, KSACARD BANK| ||INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING MANAGEMENT,| ||KOCHI.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF RELIEVING ORDER| ||NO.ITM/TI/FIN-17025/2016-17 DATED| ||12.08.2016 ISSUED BY PRINCIPAL OF KSCARD| ||BANK INSTITUTE FOR TRAINING AND| ||MANAGEMENT, KOCHI.| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.8/15/R DATED| ||10.08.2015 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY| ||ASSISTANT REGISTRAR AND VALUATION| ||OFFICER OF 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ITS TRUE| ||ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO,CRB 8751/2015| ||DATED 22.12.2015 ISSUED BY JOINT| ||REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES| ||(GENERAL), KOLLAM TO 3RD RESPONDENT WITH| ||ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF RESOLUTION NO VI DATED| ||16.01.2016 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE| ||COMMITTEE OF 3RD RESPONDENT WITH ITS| ||TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION.| **WP(C) NO. 20817 OF 2021** -8- Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.CRB 8751/2015 DATED 17.03.2016 ISSUED BY JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) KOLLAM TO DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM WITH ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 3.3.2021 IN ARC NO.45 OF 2017 PASSED BY CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13.09.2021 IN APPEAL NO.2 OF 2021 PASSED BY KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.