Somalatha V.V. v. KSRTC Staff Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Others

## **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. 16119 OF 2013 (L) ----------------------------** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN INDUS 14/2008 OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI DATED 05-12-2012** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------------------** **SOMALATHA V.V., W/O.LATE V.NATARAJAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C., STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., K 141, KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT KUZHIKKATTU HOUSE, NATTAKAOM P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 013.** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER SRI.T.P.DEYANANTHAN** **RESPONDENT(S):** ## **----------------------------** **1. KSRTC STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K-141, KOTTAYAM - 686 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN ADAM TOWER, STAR JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **2. THE PRESIDENT,** - **KSRTC STAFF CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.K-141, ADAM TOWER, STAR JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.** **3. THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER.** **4. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, REPRESENTED BY THE JOINTY REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.** **R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS** **R3 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SMT. V.P. SATHI** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **WP(C).NO. 16119 OF 2013 (L)** **----------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF S.S.L.C.** **EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.02.2006 SUBMITTED BY LATE RAMAN NAIR ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE BANK.** **EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 01.03.2006.** **EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 07.03.2006 SUBMITTED BY LATE NATARAJAN.** **EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 17.06.2006 SUBMITTED BY LATE RAMAN NAIR ADDRESSED TO THE PRESIDENT.** **EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY NATARAJAN TO THE ENQUIRY OFFICER IN FEBRUARY 2007 AS REPLUY TO ADDITIONAL CHARGES. EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 08.10.2007 FILED BY THE ENQUIRY OFFICE.** **EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK. EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF COMMON AWARD OF THREE WORKMEN AWARDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL.** **EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 09.11.2012 AWARDED BY THE COOPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT TO CO-WORKMAN.** **EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 01.2.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE BANK.** **EXHIBIT 12(A) TRUE COPY OF NOTICE OF DEAFULT RECEIVED FROM NATTAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK FOR RS.1,52,132/-. EXHIBIT P12(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DEFAULT NOTICE OF CANARA BANK RECEIVED IS FOR RS.2,37,895.84.** **EXHIBIT P12(C) TRUE CJOPY OF NOTICE OF LIABILIY RECEIVED FROM KOTTAYAM TALUK CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY OF ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME CERTIFICATE DATED 12.06.2013 ISSUED BY NATTAKAM VILLAGE OFFICER. EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY.** **EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM TO THE BANK DT.28.6.13 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.** ## **WP(C).NO. 16119 OF 2013 (L)** ## **----------------------------** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** |**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**|**RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS**| |---|---| |**-------------------------**|| |**EXT.R1A**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE NATARAJAN.**| |**EXT.R1B**|**TRUE COPIES OF THE CONSOLIDATED CHARGES AGAINST THE**| ||**NATARAJAN**| |**EXT.R1C**|**A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17.4.08 OF THE APPEAL**| ||**COMMITTEE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**| **//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE** ## **DST** ## **K. HARILAL, J.** ## **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P. (C) No.16119 of 2013** **- - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -** Dated this the 4th day of March, 2016 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the wife of late ‘Sri.Nadarajan’, who was an employee in the respondent Co-operative Bank. Subsequently, he was suspended from the service on the allegation of misappropriation and eventually dismissed from the service along with three others. They challenged the dismissal order before the Industrial Tribunal and after taking evidence, the Industrial Tribunal passed Ext.P9 award. In the meantime, the said ‘Nadarajan’ passed away. So in the award, the dismissal was substituted with compulsory retirement from the service with effect from the date of dismissal; but the Tribunal denied back wages to ## **W.P.(C) No. 16119 of 2013** **-: 2 :-** him. The Tribunal ought to have awarded full back wages and all terminal benefits, as awarded by the Co-operative Arbitration Court to another workman, by Ext.P10. Now, this writ petition is filed, to quash Ext.P9 to the extent it differs with the findings and reliefs awarded in Ext.P10 Co-operative arbitration award, maintaining the parity of relief to the workmen. 2. The respondent is a Co-operative Society, functioning under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 _(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)_ and the petitioner's deceased husband was an employee, working under the 1[st] respondent and dispute was between the society and the employee. In the above view, the first point to be considered is, whether ## **W.P.(C) No. 16119 of 2013** ## **-: 3 :-** 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 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_ ## **W.P.(C) No. 16119 of 2013** ## **-: 4 :-** _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 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_ ## **W.P.(C) No. 16119 of 2013** ## **-: 5 :-** _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 and the Tribunal was not vested with the jurisdiction to decide the 'dispute' between the petitioner's deceased husband and the respondent. Consequently, Ext.P9 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.P9 was pending before this Court from 2013 onwards, the petitioner is allowed to seek proper remedies before the ## **W.P.(C) No. 16119 of 2013** **-: 6 :-** Arbitration Court, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and in that event, the Arbitration Court is directed to dispose the ARC on merits, notwithstanding the delay. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- **K. HARILAL, JUDGE** **K. HARILAL,** //True copy// P.A. To Judge DST