Santosh.K v. Registrar, Department of Co-operation, Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Jawahar Sahakaranabhavan, DPI Junction, Thycadu, Thiruvananthapuram and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** # **FRIDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 35869 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **SANTHOSH.K AGED 49 YEARS S/O. KUNJURAMAN, KAALIYAN VILAKOM, MUKKALUVATTOM, PUTHUKKARI, CHIRAYANKEEZHU P.O., SARKARA VILLAGE, CHIRAYANKEEZHU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 304.** **BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCITIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANABHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCADU.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.** - **2 THE JOINT REGISTRAR DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, JAWAHAR SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, DPI JUNCTION, THYCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014.** - **3 THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1155 CHIRAYINKEEZHU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 014, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.** - **4 THE PRESIDENT THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1155, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 014.** - **5 THE SECRETARY THE SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1155, CHIRAYINKEEZHU, CHIRAYINKEEZHU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM , PIN - 695 014.** W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 2 ## **ADDL. R6 TO R9 IMPLEADED** **6 ADDL.R6 : THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.** - **7 ADDL.R7 : THE SECRETARY LABOUR DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695014.** - **8 ADDL.R8 : THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER KOLLAM CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013. (ADDL.R6 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/12/2018 IN IA.NO.02/2018)** - **9 ADDL.R9 : THE LABOUR OFFICER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, LABOUR OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695013. (ADDL.R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 20/12/2018 IN IA.NO.04/2018)** **BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P** ## **SMT.C.S.SHEEJA-SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.04.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner's limited prayer in this W.P. is that Exhibit-P6 Execution Petition, preferred by him to implement Exhibit-P7 Award received by him in Industrial Dispute No.64 of 2003, be directed to be expedited and concluded in terms of law within a time frame. 2. The contentions of respondents 3 to 5, in opposition to this prayer, is that Exhibit-P7 Award had been challenged before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30854 of 2007, which, on being dismissed through Exhibit-R5(a) judgment, was further assailed in W.A.No.2516 of 2009 and that this appeal was referred to a Larger Bench, which finally led to a judgment to be delivered, along with a batch of connected matters, reported as **Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. K.Santhosh [2015(4) KLT 163** (L.B.)] declaring that the Award obtained by the petitioner from the Labour Court is jurisdictionally incompetent. Respondents 3 to 5 submit that this judgment has now become final and that therefore, the Award cannot be executed. 3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.C.S.Sheeja, submits that the official respondents have no particular interest in this matter, but that she is making submissions only as an officer of this Court and adds that she has been compelled to do so because the position of law will require to be put in its correct perspective. She says W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 4 that the judgment in **Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra)** was challenged by certain others before the Honourable Supreme Court, which finally led to a judgment reported as **K.A.Annamma. v. The Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. [2018 (1) KHC 258]** , wherein the affirmative declaration of law is that an employee has the right either to approach the Arbitrator under the Co-operative Societies Act or to obtain an Award under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act by approaching the competent Labour Court. She says, therefore, that the judgment of the Larger Bench has been completely overruled in **K.A.Annamma (supra)** and further points out that in paragraph 105 of the said judgment, it has been clearly declared that “all cases, which have taken a contrary view, would also stand overruled”. She, therefore, asserts that the judgment of the learned Single Judge, namely, Exhibit-R5(a) in this case, would stand revived because the appellate judgment obtained by respondents 3 to 5 has been overruled in **K.A.Annamma (supra)** . She then adds that the proper remedy of respondents 3 to 5, therefore, was to have approached the learned Division Bench for rehearing or with a review of the appellate judgment on its merits rather than taking a stand that they are not bound by Exhibit-P7 Award, in view of the Larger Bench judgment, which has concedely now been overruled. W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 5 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.G.Sreejith, submits that he is in affirmation of all the submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore and supplementally adds that once the Honourable Supreme Court had delivered the judgment in **K.A.Annamma (supra)** , nothing remains for the petitioner to do further and that if respondents 3 to 5 were so desirous, they should have approached the Division Bench appropriately, either for rehearing the appeal or for review of the same, even if it is admitted that the said Bench had disposed of their appeal not on merits but solely on the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. He says that their refusal to do so until now clearly indicates that they are aware of the real position that **K.A.Annamma (supra)** covers the field. He, therefore, reiterates that Exhibit-P6 Execution Petition is capable of full execution and that it be ordered to done within a time frame. 5. In answer to the aforesaid contentions, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 5 makes a rather startling assertion that since the petitioner did not personally challenge the appellate judgment, covered in **Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd** . **(supra)** before the Honourable Supreme Court, it should be presumed that the said judgment holds the field against him and therefore, that Exhibit-P7 Award must be now construed to have been W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 6 set aside. In its crux, the assertion of the learned counsel is that because the petitioner did not challenge the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 5, it must be treated to be covering the petitioner's case alone and that if he wants the said judgment to be set aside, he must approach the Honourable Supreme Court against it. 6. I must say that I am amazed by the submissions made on behalf respondents 3 to 5 because in **K.A.Annamma (supra)** , the emphatic declaration of law by the Honourable Supreme Court is that an employee has the right to invoke the Industrial Disputes Act also and therefore, that all the judgments delivered contrary to this view will stand overruled. It is, therefore, obvious that all the judgments delivered by the Larger Bench of this Court, along with **Chirayinkeezhu Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra)** would also stand overruled ; consequently, reviving all those Awards issued by the competent Labour Court thus making them eligible for being implemented in law. 7. In the afore circumstances and since I find substantial force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and by the learned Government Pleader, I direct respondent No.9 to take up Exhibit-P6 and dispose of the same in terms of law, after W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 7 affording necessary opportunity of being heard to respondents 3 to 5 also ; however, leaving full liberty to them to invoke their remedies as regard as the appellate judgment in W.A.No.2516 of 2009, as they may be advised. The afore exercise shall be completed by the ninth respondent Labour Officer as expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is ordered accordingly. ## **DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN** **JUDGE** W.P.(C) No.35869/2018 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1** - **TRUE COPY OF REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10/03/2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT AND POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD.** - **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/09/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16/07/2018.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, KOLLAM.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF EXECUTION PETITION FILED BEFORE THE LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR COURT, KOLLAM IN INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES NO.64/2003 DATED 17.10.2006.** ## **RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :** - **EXHIBIT R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.8.2009 IN W.P.(C) NO.30854/2007 ON THE FILE OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** - **EXHIBIT R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT.11.1.2019 ISSUED TO THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** csl