W.P.(C) Nos. 12187/16 & 18265/16: Nizar Y S/O YUSUFKUNJU and others vs State of Kerala and Others; Abdul Razak A. and others vs State of Kerala and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 12187 of 2016** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 NIZAR Y S/O.YUSUFKUNJU, AGED 44 YEARS, OTTATHENGIL HOUSE, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 518.** - **2 PRASANNAN K S/O.KOCHUPAPPU, AGED 45 YEARS, THARAVETTIL, PUNNAKULAM, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KOLLAM - 690 518.** - **3 SOMASEKHARAN PILLAI J S/O.JANARDHANAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, PALAPPILLY THEKKETHIL, EDAKULANGAR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **4 BABU M S/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PALAPPILLY THARAYIL, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **5 SHAJI K S/O.KASIMKUNJU, AGED 38 YEARS, AYIKAMATHU PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **6 THULASEEDHARAN S S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 53 YEARS, VIJAYAPURI (KATHI AYYATTU), ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **7 GIREESHKUMAR S/O.CHELLAPPAN CHETTIAR, AGED 45 YEARS, RAJESWARI BHAVAN, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **8 MAJEEDKUTTY S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU, AGED 52 YEARS, ALETH THEKKETHIL HOUSE, EDAKULANGAR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **9 MOHANAN PILLAI** - **S/O.KESAVA PILLAI, AGED 58 YEARS, PADINJARE MANOOR, ADHINADU NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 2 - **10 JAYAPALAN K.S S/O.KUNJU PANICKER, AGED 48 YEARS, VEROLIL VEEDU, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **11 THANKAMMA G D/O.MADHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, KOMALALAYAM, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O.** - **12 RAJENDRAN PILLAI S S/O.SAHADEVAN PILLAI, AGED 57 YEARS, SREE NIVAS, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **13 BALABHADRAN K S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, AGED 57 YEARS, CHENKARA LAKSHAMVEEDU, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O.** - **14 PRAMOD S S/O.SADANANDAN, AGED 43 YEARS, MANAKATTU HOUSE, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O.** - **15 PUSPACHANDRAN N S/O.NEELAKANTAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KARINILATHU, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O.** - **16 MOHANAN K S/O.KOCHUPAPPU, AGED 49 YEARS, THARAVEETTIL VADAKKATHIL, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **17 USHAKUMARI D/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 46 YEARS, KEEPALLIL THARAYIL, KRISHNAPURAM, KAYAMKULAM P.O.** - **18 SIVASANKARA PILLAI R S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AGED 50 YEARS, PALAPPALLIL, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 3 - **19 RADHAKRISHNAN R S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RADHAKRISHNABHAVANAM, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **20 JAYAPRAKASHAN PILLAI S/O.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS, ELLIKULATHU, ADHINADU NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **21 SABU B S/O.BALABHADRAN, AGED 44 YEARS, SREEVILASOM, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **22 NASSAR K S/O.KASIMKUNJU, AGED 44 YEARS, KUNNEL, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **23 PUSPARAJAN K S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 47 YEARS, VELILYIL VEEDU, PADA VADAKKU, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **24 RAJEEVAN K S/O.KESAVAN, AGED 51 YEARS, PONNANTHAYYATHU, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **25 ALIKUNJU M S/O.MUHAMMED ISMAIL, AGED 48 YEARS, MANAKKATTU THEKKATHIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O.** - **26 SALIM M S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU, AGED 45 YEARS, EDASSERIL, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **27 ANIL KUMAR K S/O.KUTTAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, VEROOR VEEDU, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **28 SURENDRAN K S/O.KUNJURAMAN, AGED 49 YEARS, KUNNEL VEEDU, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 4 - **29 RASEENA D/O.ASEES, AGED 44 YEARS, SAJINA MANZIL, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **30 BABU D S/O. PAPPU, AGED 48 YEARS, KOOTTUNGAL, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **31 REMANAN K S/O.KARUTHAKUNJU, AGED 55 YEARS, VALLANTHARA, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **32 PRAKASHAN S S/O.SIVARAMAN, AGED 47 YEARS, THOTTUNGASSERIL KIZHAKKATHIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **33 MANOHARAN S S/O.SREEDHARAN, AGED 49 YEARS, PANIKKASSERIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **34 PRADEEPAN V S/O.VELAYUDHAN,AGED 47 YEARS, THUNDATHIL VADAKKATHIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **35 ANILKUMAR G S/O.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, CHAMPANKOTTU THEKKETHARA, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **36 JAYAPRAKASH K S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, VENGOLIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **37 BIJU D S/O.DIVAKARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, BINDHU BHAVAN, PADA NORTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O.** - **38 AJAYAKUMAR R S/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, PANIKKASSERIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **39 AJIKUMAR S/O.BHANU, AGED 42 YEARS, KANIMANGALATHU, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 5 - **40 GOPAKUMAR S S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS, SREE VINAYAKAM, KARUNAGAPPALLY, VAVVAKKAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **41 BALARAJAN A** - **S/O.ACHUTHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, KOTTARRATHIL, ADHINADU NORTH P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **42 PRAMOD G S/O.GANGADHARAN, AGED 43 YEARS, CHENKILATHUTHARA THEKKATHIL, THAZHAVA P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **43 SALIM P S/O.KASIMKUNJU, AGED 46 YEARS, F.A.MANZIL, KALEEKKAL VADAKKATHIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **44 PRAKASAN R** - **S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, AGED 40 YEARS, PAYIKKATTU, PUNNAKKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **45 KAMALAN K S/O.KUNJAN, AGED 49 YEARS, SREE BHAVANAM, MUZHANGODI, THODIYOOR P.O.** - **46 KRISHNANKUTTY K S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, THANAL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **47 SAINUDEENKUNJU S S/O.SULAIMANKUNJU, AGED 46 YEARS, CHENKARA LAKSHAM VEEDU, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **48 USHADEVI G D/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 49 YEARS, ARUN BHAVANAM, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **49 BABU R S/O.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, AGED 47 YEARS, KOCHUVEETTIL VADAKKATHIL, MAVELY, PANMANA P.O., CHAVARA.** - **50 PRAKASH K S/O. K G KUMARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, AKKANATTU MEKKETHIL, ALAPPADU, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 6 - **51 IZAHAK K S/O.KASIMKUNJU, AGED 50 YEARS, AYIKKAMATHU PADEETTATHIL, PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **52 OMANA K D/O.VELUTHAKUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, CHANGETHEKKETHIL, ADHINADU PUNNAKULAM, K S PURAM P.O.** - **53 R.MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI S/O.RAGHAVAN UNNITHAN, AGED 52 YEARS, HARITHA BHAVANAM, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **54 T.SIVANKUTTY S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 54 YEARS, MANNINNAVILA LAKSHAM VEEDU, MARUNNOORKULANGAR SOUTH, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **55 SIDHIK M S/O.MUHAMMEDKUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, PALLIYIL AYYATH (EDAPURAYIL), NORTH MYNAGAPPALLY, MYNAGAPPALLY P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **56 THAKARAJAN K S/O.KUMARAN, AGED 57 YEARS, PUTHUVEETTIL, ALUMKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN SRI.CIBI C.CHEERAN SRI.C.SIVADAS SRI.H.ABDUL SUDHEER SRI.M.P. HARIKUMARAN PILLAI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA, MINiSTRY OF CO-OPERATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.** - **2 KERA KARASHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD NO. 4370 (KERAFED), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695014 REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 7 |**3**|**KERA KARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION**| |---|---| ||**LTD NO. 4370 (KERAFED), KARUNAGAPPALLY OIL COMPLEX,**| ||**PIN 690518, REPRESENTED BY PLANT - IN CHARGE.**| |**4**|**STATE OF KERALA**| ||**MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,**| ||**MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTAHPURAM 695001.**| |**5**|**KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, PATTOM**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY 695001.**| **BY ADVS. SRI.MANU GOVIND, SC, KERAFED SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTOM SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GOVRNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.18265/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 8 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **FRIDAY ,THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 13TH ASWINA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 18265 of 2016** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 ABDUL RAZAK A. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KHADER, RIZA VILLA, S V MARKET, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 573.** - **2 HARIKUMAR S. S/O.SADASIVAN PILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, PANAYANCHERIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518.** - **3 HARIKUMAR K. S/O.KUNJUPANIKKAN, AGED 45 YEARS, M K NIVAS, (KOOTTUNGAL KIZHAKKETHARA) ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU PO, KARNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518.** - **4 MADHU V. S/O.VASU, AGED 45 YEARS, SATHI MANDIRAM, ADHINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM-690 518.** - **5 GOPI C. S/O.CHAKRAPANI, AGED 52 YEARS, PUTHENPURAYIL, PARAYAKADAVU, NEAR AMRITAPURI, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **6 RADHAKRISHNAN S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, PUTHENTHARAYIL, CHANGANKULANGARA, VAVVAKKAVU PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** - **7 SHAJI L S/O.LAKSHMANAN, AGED 48 YEARS, KARTHIKA, THAZHAVA PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 9 - **8 VIJAYAKUMAR P. S/O.PADMANABHAN, AGED 50 YEARS, KUMARAPURATH, ALAPPADY, CHERIYAZHEEKAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY.** **BY ADVS. SRI.V.B.NARAYANAN SRI.C.SIVADAS SRI.H.ABDUL SUDHEER SRI.M.P.HARIKUMARAN PILLAI** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CO-OPERATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 KERALA KERAKARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD.NO.4370 (KERAFED), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.** - **3 KERALA KERAKARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD.NO.4370 (KERAFED) KARUNAGAPPALLY OIL COMPLEX, REPRESENTED BY PLANT-IN-CHARGE** - **4 STATE OF KERALA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.** **BY ADVS.** - **SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC, KERAFED SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM SC KERAFED SRI.MANU GOVIND SC KERAFED SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN SC KPSC** **SRI BIMAL K.NATH, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.10.2018, ALONG WITH WP(C)NO.12187/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 10 ## **JUDGMENT** W.P.(C) No.12187 of 2016 :- The petitioners, who are working as Production Assistants in the Oil complex of the third respondent KERAFED at Karunagappally, which is an Apex Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus of commanding respondents 2 and 3 to grant all benefits as per the provisions of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, including leave benefits, medical reimbursement, due promotion, arrears of D.A. and Provident Fund, service weightage from 1992 for calculation of gratuity and other benefits which certain other employees are being granted by the management of respondents 2 and 3. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to frame uniform guidelines, criteria and policies for the purpose of promotions and other service benefits and monetary benefits to the petitioners and others without any discrimination. 2. On 30.3.2016, when this Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 4. Respondents 2 and 3 entered appearance through counsel and the learned Standing Counsel took notice for the fifth respondent Kerala Public Service Commission. W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 11 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fifth respondent opposing the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. 4. W.P.(C) No.18265 of 2016:- The petitioners, who are working as Electrical Supervisors/Boiler Operators/Operators in the Oil Complex of the second respondent KERAFED at Karunagappally, have filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to re-fix the scale of pay in relation to the scale of pay applicable to their designation on promotion and to grant all the benefits as per the provisions of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, including leave benefits, medical reimbursement, due promotion, arrears of D.A. and Provident Fund, service weightage from 1992 for calculation of gratuity and other benefits which certain other employees are being granted by the management of the second and third respondents and seeking a writ of mandamus commanding second and third respondents to frame uniform guidelines, criteria and policies for the purpose of promotions and other service benefits and monetary benefits to them and others without any discrimination. 5. On 10.6.2016, when this Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 and 4, the learned Standing Counsel took notice for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Public Service Commission took W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 12 notice for the fifth respondent. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents opposing the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition. The fifth respondent Public Service Commission has also filed a counter affidavit. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in both Writ Petitions, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the State and official respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for KERAFED. 8. The sole issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether any interference is warranted in these Writ Petitions in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the statutory remedy available to the petitioners under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. 9. Section 69 of the Act deals with disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar. As per clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 69, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises between the society or its Committee and any past Committee, any officer, agent or employee or any past officer, past agent or past employee or the nominee, heirs or legal representatives of any deceased officer, deceased agent or deceased employee of the society, such disputes shall be referred to Co- W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 13 operative Arbitration Court constituted under Section 70A of the Act, in the case of non-monetary disputes and to the Registrar, in the case of monetary disputes, and the Arbitration Court or the Registrar, as the case may be, shall decide such disputes and no other court or other authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such disputes. As per clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 69, for the purpose of sub-section (1), any dispute arising in connection with employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies specified in sub-section (1) of Section 80 of the Act, including their promotion and inter se seniority, shall also be deemed to be disputes. 10. In **Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Das Agarwal [(2014) 1 SCC 603]** the Apex Court held that non-entertainment of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule and self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the existence of alternative remedy. However, High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same, unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 14 exists sufficient ground to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. 11. In **Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.[(2018) 3 SCC 85]** the Apex Court reiterated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well defined exceptions as observed in **Chaabil Das Agarwal's case (supra)** , i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice. After referring to the law laid down in **Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [AIR 1964 SC 1419]** and **Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433]** the Apex Court held that High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 15 redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 12. In **Thansingh Nathmal's case (supra)** a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held that, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily, the court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not, therefore, act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal or W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 16 even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 13. In **Titaghur Paper Mills' case (supra)** a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that, the Orissa Sales Tax Act, 1947 provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in **Wolverhampton New Water Works Co. v. Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336]** at page 356 in the following passage: "There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon statute ..... But there is a third class, viz., where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it ..... the remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 17 cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to." The rule laid down in that passage was approved by the House of Lords in **Neville v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.[1919 AC 368]** and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in **Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. [1935 AC 532]** and **Secretary of State v. Mask and Co. [AIR 1940 PC 105]** . It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights and has been followed by the Apex Court throughout. 14. In the instant case, the claim made by the petitioners is a dispute which has to be raised for adjudication before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, in view of the provisions under clause (c) of sub-section (1), read with clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 69 of the Act. As per sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act, the Co-operative Arbitration Court is empowered to make such interlocutory orders as it may deem necessary in the interest of justice, pending award of a dispute referred to it under Section 69. An award passed by the Arbitration Court under subsection (1) of Section 70 of the Act is appealable before the Co-operative Tribunal, under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 82 of the Act. The provisions under Sections 69 and 70 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that an effective statutory forum has been created under the Act for adjudication of disputes of the employees of a Co-operative Banks in W.P.(C) Nos.12187/16 &18265/16 18 connection with their employment, including promotion and inter se seniority. In both writ petitions no exceptional circumstance is pointed out for not availing the statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Act. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, conclusion is irresistible that the reliefs sought for in these Writ Petitions squarely fall within the scope of the provisions under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to raise dispute before the Co-operative Arbitration Court by filing proper applications. Without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to avail statutory remedy under Section 69 of the Act, these Writ Petitions filed on 29.3.2016 and 24.5.2016 are dismissed as not maintainable. All legal and factual contentions raised by both sides are left open to be raised before appropriate authority, at appropriate stage. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** //True Copy// P.S. to Judge