High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit Petitions are allowed; impugned awards are...
Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 16372/2023, 17807/2023, 18324/2023, 17085/2023 and 20070/2023
Case / Petition Number:WP(C) Nos. 16372/2023, 17807/2023, 18324/2023, 17085/2023 and 20070/2023
Case Details & Bench
- Court
- High Court of Kerala
- Hon'ble Judges
- Basant Balaji
- Judgment Date
- 2023-11-09
- Court Decision / Holding
- The writ petitions are allowed, impugned awards set aside, and the matters remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration in light of the Mattanur decision and to be disposed of on merits, in accordance with law.
- Final Disposition
- Writ Petitions are allowed; impugned awards are set aside; remitted to Labour Court for fresh consideration in light of Mattannur (supra) and disposed of on merits in accordance with law.
Parties to the Case
Appellants / Petitioners
- JITHESH.K.T.
- SAJEEVAN.P.P.
- PANNIANORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD
- MADAYI COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.
Respondents
- PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES (represented by its Secretary)
- BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES
- LABOUR COURT, KANNUR
- K.V.SANTHOSH
- JITHESH.K.T.
- P.P. SAJEEVAN
Legal Representation & Advocates
Counsels for Petitioners
- • P.P. Jacob
- • Bindumol Joseph
- • A. Rajasimhan
- • Beena Joseph
- • Riyas M.B.
Counsels for Respondents
- • Bindumol Joseph
- • A. Rajasimhan
- • Beena Joseph
- • Riyas M.B.
Case Synopsis & Summary
These writ petitions challenge a Labour Court ruling that the charge memo issued by a disciplinary sub-committee lacked competence under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. The Labour Court framed a preliminary issue whether the disciplinary sub-committee’s memo of charges is the competent authority to initiate disciplinary action under Rule 198. The Labour Court, relying on Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese (2020) (4) KLT 129, held that the Appointing Authority (Managing Committee) is the sole exclusive authority to issue memos in Rule 198 cases, and thus the charge memo was not competent. The petitioners contended that a Full Bench of this court in Mattanur Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Co-operative Arbitration Court and another (ILR 2023 (3) Kerala 863) overruled Kodanchery and held that the Disciplinary Sub-Committee, along with the Managing Committee, has jurisdiction to issue memos; the President’s competence was left open. The Full Bench clarified that the doctrine of prospective overruling rests solely with the Apex Court (Golak Nath), not High Courts. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions, set aside the Labour Court’s award, and remitted the matters for fresh consideration in light of Mattanur’s rulings, to be disposed of on merits in accordance with law.
Provisions of Law Cited
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198(2A)Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198(2B)Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, Rule 198(3)
Legal Doctrines & Maxims
- Prospective overruling doctrine (Apex Court only; see Golak Nath)
- res judicata
- constructive res judicata
- estoppel
- laches
- time bar
Submissions & Arguments
Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners
The petitioners relied on the subsequent Full Bench decision in Mattanur Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Co-operative Arbitration Court and another (ILR 2023 (3) Kerala 863), which overruled the earlier Kodanchery Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese and held that the Disciplinary Sub-Committee and, where appropriate, the Managing Committee have jurisdiction to issue memos of charges under Rule 198. They argued that the earlier view reflected in Kodanchery is no longer good law and that the Chairman/Managing Committee, the Disciplinary Sub-Committee, and in certain cases the President all have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings, depending on Rule 198(2A)(3). They urged remand to Labour Court for fresh merits-based consideration in line with Mattanur’s reasoning, while noting that prospective overruling cannot be invoked by High Courts and that this judgment applies to new as well as pending cases.
Contentions of Respondents
The respondents argued to maintain the Labour Court’s view based on Kodanchery, interpreting Rule 198 as conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Appointing Authority (Managing Committee) to issue memos. They contended that the disciplinary sub-committee’s role is limited to inquiry and penalty administration under the sub-rules, with the President only relevant for second-category employees. They maintained that the pre-Mattanur position still governs pending matters, and that the High Court could not adopt a prospective overruling. They emphasized that the competent authority for issuing charges must be the statutory authority under Rule 198, and that the Labour Court’s order should stand unless overruled by a higher authority.
Cited Precedents (4)
| Case Name | Citation | Treatment | Explanation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese | 2020 (4) KLT 129 | Overruled | Full bench overruled the Division Bench’s view in Kodanchery’s case that the Appointing Authority alone could issue memos. |
| Mattanur Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The Co-operative Arbitration Court and another | ILR 2023 (3) Kerala 863 | Positive | Full bench held that Disciplinary Sub-Committee and Managing Committee have jurisdiction to issue charge memos; supports petitioners’ position. |
| Kochurani Jose’s case | (supra) | Overruled | To the extent it held otherwise on the composition/jurisdiction of the disciplinary sub-committee; overruled by the Full Bench. |
| Golak Nath and Others v. State of Punjab | AIR 1967 SC 1643 | Mentioned Only | Doctrine of prospective overruling referenced to explain that only the Apex Court may invoke this doctrine; High Courts do not possess that power. |
Diagnostic Tool
Does this judgment govern your specific facts?
Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 16372/2023, 17807/2023, 18324/2023, 17085/2023 and 20070/2023 and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.
Extracted Judgment Text
Exact text extracted from official judgment records.
1
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`**
```
THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945
```
## **`WP(C) NO. 16372 OF 2023`**
## **`PETITIONER/S:`**
```
JITHESH.K.T.
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O BALAN SALESMAN, PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-
OPERATIVE STORES, NO.C 996, P.O.CHAMPAD, THALASSERY,
RESIDING AT METHOTTATHIL HOUSE, CHEMPAD.P.O.,
THALASSERY., PIN - 670101
BY ADV P.P.JACOB
```
## **`RESPONDENT/S:`**
```
1 THE PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE
STORES,NO.C 996, P.O.CHAMPAD, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED
BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 670101
2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH
CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES
NO.C 996, P.O.CHAMPAD, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, PIN - 670101
3 THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COURT,
KANNUR, EDAPALLY PANVEL HIGHWAY (NH 17), NEAR SUB JAIL,
SOUTH BAZAR, TALAP, KANNUR, PIN - 670002
BY ADVS.
BINDUMOL JOSEPH
A.RAJASIMHAN(K/001180/2002)
BEENA JOSEPH(K/77/2008)
RIYAS M.B.(K/000629/2023)
```
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).17085/2023, AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
2
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`**
```
THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945
```
```
WP(C) NO. 17085 OF 2023
```
## **`PETITIONER/S:`**
```
SAJEEVAN.P.P,AGED 49 YEARS
SALESMAN, PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE
STORES, NO.C 996, P.0.CHAMPAD, THALESSERY, RESIDING AT
SRUTHI NIVAS, CHEMPAD.P.O., THLASSERY., PIN - 670694
BY ADV P.P.JACOB
```
## **`RESPONDENT/S:`**
```
1 THE PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE
STORES, NO.C 996,
P.O.CHAMPAD, PIN – 670694, THALASSERY, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.,
2 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PANNIANNORE PANCHAYATH,
CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES, NO.C 996, P.O.CHAMPAD,
THALASSERY, PIN – 670694, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
3 THE LABOUR COURT,
KANNUR, OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR, EDAPALLY
PANVEL HIGHWAY (NH 17), NEAR SUB JAIL SOUTH BAZAR,
TALAP, KANNUR., PIN - 670002
BY ADVS.
BINDUMOL JOSEPH
BEENA JOSEPH
A.RAJASIMHAN
RIYAS M.B.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).16372/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
3
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`**
```
THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945
```
```
WP(C) NO. 17807 OF 2023
```
## **`PETITIONER/S:`**
```
PANNIANORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD
NO: C:996,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHAMPAD.P.O.,KANNUR,
```
```
BY ADVS.
BINDUMOL JOSEPH
A.RAJASIMHAN
BEENA JOSEPH
RIYAS M.B.
```
## **`RESPONDENT/S:`**
```
1 JITHESH.K.T.,
S/O BALAN, INDRIYAM, CHEMPAD.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT
670694
2 LABOUR COURT,
KANNUR, PIN - 670002
```
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).16372/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
4
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 18324 OF 2023
```
## **`PETITIONER/S:`**
```
MADAYI COOPERATIVE RURAL BANK LTD.
PAYANGADI, KANNUR- , PIN – 670303,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
```
```
BY ADVS.
BINDUMOL JOSEPH
A.RAJASIMHAN
BEENA JOSEPH
RIYAS M.B.
```
## **`RESPONDENT/S:`**
```
1 K.V.SANTHOSH
KANNARATH VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.KEEZHARA, CHERUKUNNU,
KANNUR DISTRICT-, PIN - 670694
2 LABOUR COURT
KANNUR-, PIN - 670002
```
## **`OTHER PRESENT:`**
```
SR GP SMT REKHA C. NAIR
```
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).16372/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
5
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI`**
```
THURSDAY, THE 9[TH] DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 18TH KARTHIKA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 20070 OF 2023
```
## **`PETITIONER/S:`**
```
PANNIANORE PANCHAYATH CONSUMER CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD
NO.C.996.,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CHAMPAD.P.O.,KANNUR- PIN – 670694, REPRESENTED BY
MEERA, D/O SANKARANKUTTY ADIYODI.,
```
```
BY ADVS.
BINDUMOL JOSEPH
A.RAJASIMHAN
BEENA JOSEPH
RIYAS M.B.
```
## **`RESPONDENT/S:`**
```
1 P.P. SAJEEVAN,
S/O. SREEDHARAN, SRUTHI HOUSE, CHAMPAD.P.O.,
KANNUR - 670694
2 LABOUR COURT,
KANNUR-670002., PIN - 670002
```
```
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
09.11.2023, ALONG WITH WP(C).16372/2023 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
6
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`JUDGMENT`**
```
[WP(C) Nos.16372/2023,17807/2023,
18324/2023,17085/2023 and 20070/2023]
```
(Dated this the 9[th] day of November 2023)
The question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is one and the same. Therefore, they are heard together and the Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The common question for consideration is whether a charge memo issued by a Disciplinary Sub Committee is with jurisdiction and competence. The Labour Court, as per the impugned award, had raised the above-mentioned question as a preliminary point and decided, holding that the charge memo issued to the petitioner by the disciplinary sub-committee is not the competent authority in view of the decision of this court reported in **Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese [2020 (4) KLT 129]** . The charge memo was set aside, and the management society was given the liberty to
7
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings by framing and serving new charge memos by the competent authority.
3. The counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this court that a full bench of this court in **Mattanur Cooperative Bank Ltd., v. The Co-operative Arbitration Court**
**and another [ILR 2023 (3) Kerala 863]** and contends that the said issue has attained finality and the full bench has held that the managing committee and disciplinary sub-committee has the jurisdiction competence to issue memo of charges.
## 4. The full bench held as follows:
“86. The upshot of the above discussion may be summed up as follows:
(i) The view rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Kodanchery’s case) (supra), more particularly paragraph No.5 thereof, to the effect that the Appointing Authority (Managing Committee) is the sole exclusive authority to issue memo of charges to the delinquent employees covered by Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, does not reflect the correct legal position and to that extent, the said position will stand over-ruled.
8
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
(ii) Disciplinary sub-committee, as per sub rules (2A) & (2B) is the same as the sub-committee referred to in sub rule (3) of Rule 198. Disciplinary sub-committee, envisaged in terms of sub rule (2A) of Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, which is designated as the penalty authority, in terms of the tabular column appended under Rule 198(3), will also have the jurisdictional competence to issue memo of charges to delinquent employees, in the process of carrying out its duties and responsibilities of inquiring into the charges, as envisaged in sub rule (2B) of Rule 198.
(iii) The Managing Committee (appointing authority) of a Co-operative Society also will have the jurisdictional competence to issue memo of charges, in cases covered under Rule 198. The Disciplinary sub-committee will also have the jurisdiction to issue memo of charges, even in cases of employees covered by the second category mentioned in Rule 198 (3) for whom, the penalty authority is the President.
(iv) Final opinion on the issue, as to whether the President of a Co-operative Society has the jurisdictional competence to issue memo of charges to employees, who come within the first category of employees, appended under Rule 198(3), for whom the penalty authority is the disciplinary subcommittee, is left open to be raised and decided in appropriate cases.
(v) For the aforesaid reasons, it is also held that the legal position, settled by the Division Bench in paragraph No.12 in Kochurani Jose’s case(supra), as if the disciplinary subcommittee is to be constituted only on a case-to-case basis and that the disciplinary sub-committee is to be constituted in terms of Rule 198(2A) only after the Managing Committee finds that the explanation of the memo of charges given by the delinquent is unsatisfactory, etc., also does not reflect the correct legal position and the said position, to that extent, will stand over-ruled. As the other issues in the afore cited Kochurani Jose’s case (supra) are not relevant to the point of reference, we need not get into those issues.
9
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
(vi) As already mentioned hereinabove, the Apex Court alone is empowered to invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling [see Golak Nath’s case(supra)], and the said power of prospective overruling is not vested with the High Courts. Hence, it is clarified that the legal position settled in the instant cases, shall affect both new cases arising on or after the date of this decision as well as cases pending as on this day. However, past cases, which have already been settled and finalized by adjudication, in view of the issues of res judicata and constructive res judicata cannot be reopened on the basis of this. So also, past cases barred by delay, laches, time bar, estoppel, acquiescence, etc., also cannot be re-opened, by virtue of the new declaration of law in this decision.
(vii) The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and other Notified Registrars of other categories of Co-operative Society will issue circulars instructing the co-operative societies to ensure that immediately after the elected managing committee takes charge, the said managing committee will constitute disciplinary sub-committee which could ordinarily be having term, co-terminus with the managing committee, for the effective and efficient handling of disciplinary process as per Rule 198. However, the managing committee will be at liberty to re-constitute such disciplinary sub-committee even before expiry of the term, if it is so found necessary and proper.”
5. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the full bench of
this court in **Mattannur (supra),** the award passed by the
Labour Court has to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration.
10
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
In the result, the Writ Petitions are allowed, and impugned awards are set aside. The matters are remitted to the Labour court for fresh consideration, in the light of the dictum laid down by this court in **Mattannoor (supra),** and dispose of the cases on merits, in accordance with law.
```
Sd/-
```
```
BASANT BALAJI
```
```
JUDGE
```
```
dl/
```
11
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17085/2023`**
|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`||
|---|---|
|`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER DATED`|
||`4.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO`|
||`THE PETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY`|
||`THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER`|
||`DATED NIL`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED`|
||`1.2.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)`|
||`20939/2019 DATED 16.11.2019`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D 26/20`|
||`DATED 13.1.23`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.A`|
||`632/22 DATED 27.5.2022`|
12
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17807/2023`**
|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`||
|---|---|
|`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 03/01/2018ISSUED BY THE`|
||`BOARD OF COMMITTEE`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 18/01/2018 ISSUED BY`|
||`THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THEPETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES AGAINST THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE SUBMITTED EXPLANATION DATED`|
||`1/2/2018 DENYING THE CHARGES,`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY`|
||`OFFICER AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT DELINQUENT EMPLOYEE`|
||`SUBMITTED HIS EXPLANATION DATED 1/2/2018 DENYING THE`|
||`CHARGES,`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER AGAINST 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/06/2019`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT IN ID NO 1/2021 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER IN ID NO 1/2021 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF REJIONTER FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN`|
||`ID NO 1/2021 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURTM KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER IN ID NO 1/2021 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL REJOINTER FILED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT IN ID NO 1/2021 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 13/01/2023 IN ID NO 1/2021`|
||`BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR`|
13
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18324/2023`**
|`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`||
|---|---|
|`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER TO THE 1DT RESPONDENT DATED`|
||`21/06/2019`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF MINUTES DATED 03/01/2020 OF THE`|
||`BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE`|
||`ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT DATED 06/08/2019`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE`|
||`1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED`|
||`21/11/2019`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES ISSUED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED`|
||`09/01/2020`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER'S BANK DATED`|
||`22/01/2020`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE`|
||`ENQUIRY OFFICER DATED 21/07/2020`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ISSUED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER'S BANK AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT`|
||`DATED 08/08/2020`|
|`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT IN ID`|
||`NO:16/2021 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE`|
||`THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit10`|`TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER IN ID NO: 16/2021 BEFORE THE`|
||`LABOUR COURT, KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 13/01/2023 IN ID NO:`|
||`16/2021 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT, KANNUR`|
14
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20070/2023`**
```
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
```
|`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 03/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE`|
|---|---|
||`BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDING DATED 18/01/2018 ISSUED BY THE`|
||`BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE COPY OF MEMO OF CHARGES AGAINST THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE COPY OF REPLY NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT DATED 01/02/2018`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE COPY OF ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ENQUIRY`|
||`OFFICER DATED 30/04/2019`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE COPY OF SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER`|
||`AGAINST THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/06/2019`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE COPY OF CLAIM STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT IN ID NO 26/2020 BEFORE THE LABOUR COURT,`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER`|
||`IN ID NO 26/2020 BEFORE THE LABOURCOURT, KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P9`|`TRUE COPY OF REJOINTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT IN ID NO 26/2020 BEFORE THE LABOURCOURT,`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P10`|`TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONALWRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE`|
||`PETITIONER IN ID NO 26/2020 BEFORE THE LABOURCOURT,`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P11`|`TRUE COPY OF ADDITIONAL REJOINTER FILED BY THE 1ST`|
||`RESPONDENT IN ID NO 26/2020 BEFORE THE LABOURCOURT,`|
||`KANNUR`|
|`Exhibit P12`|`TRUE COPY OF AWARD DATED 13/01/2023 IN ID NO 26/2020`|
||`BEFORE THE LABOURCOURT, KANNUR`|
15
WPC 16372/23, 17807/23,18324/23, 17085/23 & 20070 of 23
## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16372/2023`**
```
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
```
|`Exhibit P1`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER ISSUED`|
|---|---|
||`BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER`|
||`DATED 4.1.2018`|
|`Exhibit P2`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ISSUED BY`|
||`THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER`|
||`DATED NIL`|
|`Exhibit P3`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE EXPLANATION DATED`|
||`1.2.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER`|
|`Exhibit P4`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.7.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2`|
|`Exhibit P5`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)`|
||`20939/2019 DATED 16.11.2019`|
|`Exhibit P6`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.8.2019`|
||`ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER`|
|`Exhibit P7`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD IN I.D 1/2021`|
||`DATED 13.1.23`|
|`Exhibit P8`|`TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.A`|
||`632/22 DATED 27.5.2022`|