Kerala High Court
Delson Davis P vs Thrissur District ...
Author: Dama Seshadri Naidu
Bench: Dama Seshadri Naidu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DAYOF FEBRUARY2016/28TH MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 594 of 2016 (Y)
------------------------------------
PETITIONER : -
----------------------
DELSON DAVIS P., SECRETARY (UNDER SUSPENSION),
TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OP; HOSPITAL LTD NO. R 306,
SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR,
RESIDING ATPELLISSERY HOUSE, ST. FRANCIS CONVENT ROAD,
LOURDPURAM EAST FORT,THRISSUR
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS : -
--------------------------
1. THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVEHOSPITALLTD NO. 306,
SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY IN -CHARGE
2. THE SECRETARY -IN-CHARGE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP; HOSPITAL LTD. NO. R 306,
SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001
3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
ADDL.R4. THE DISCIPLINARY SUBCOMMITTEE,
THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OP. HOSPITALLTD. NO.R 306,
SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR - 680 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED04.02.2016 IN IA 1464/16).
R1,R2 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM
R1,R2 BY ADV.SMT.NISHA GEORGE
BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. D. SOMASUNDARAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
17-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 594 of 2016 (Y)
-----------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : -
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. TDCH (237) 2014-2015 DATED
29/9/14 ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY.
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/3/15 ISSUED BY THE
SOCIETY EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION OF THE
PEITIONER.
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER PRAYING FOR GRANTING SUBSITENCE ALLOWANCE
FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, ALONG WITH THE NON
EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE.
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SOCIETY FOR PAYMENT OF
SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2015.
EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SOCIETY FOR PAYMENT OF
SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2015.
EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. TDCH (313)/2015-2016
DATED23/12/15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P6(a): TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT. P6.
EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT OF
THE YEAR 2014-2015, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE GENERAL BODY.
EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.01.2016 ISSUED BY THE
SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE.
EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYSUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED21.1.2016.
EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLYDATED25.1.2016 ISSUED BY THE
CHAIRMAN, DISCIPLINARY ACTION COMMITTEE TO THE
PETITIONER.
EXT.P10(a) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P10.
EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.2.2016 ISSUED BY
ADDITIONAL 4th RESPONDENT.
WP(C).No. 594 of 2016 (Y)
-----------------------------------
EXT. P12 : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P11.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : -
---------------------------------------
EXHIBIT R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING SHEET OF THE
DOMESTIC ENQUIRYPROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R1(b) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.01.2016
ALONG WITH THE REGISTERED A/DAND ITS TRUE
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
EXHIBIT R1(c) : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 10.02.2016
AND ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION ALONG WITH THE
POSTAL RECEIPT.
// TRUE COPY //
P.A.TO JUDGE
DMR/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(c) No. 594 of 2016
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an erstwhile Secretary of the first respondent Society, being under suspension has approached this Court, once again, complaining that pending the disciplinary proceedings, he has not been paid subsistence allowance. Subsequently, through interlocutory applications, he has also raised other incidental issues.
2. Indeed, the respondent Society has joined the issue by filing a detailed counter affidavit.
3. The allegations and counter allegations fly across thick and fast. There is more than what meets the eye as the petitioner and the Managing Committee of the Society have been engaged in an acrimonious battle of egos.
4. Be that as it may, this Court does not intend to go into the merits of the matter for the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
W.P.(c) No. 594 of 2016 2
5. This Court through numerous judicial pronouncements has expounded the law that the powers of the Arbitrator under Section 69(2)(d) are quite expansive and any service dispute of whatever hue is amenable to adjudicatory ambit of the Arbitrator.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter and without prejudice to the contentions of either of the parties to the lis, closes the writ petition leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the Arbitration Court or any other appropriate forum and ventilate his grievance, if any.
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-