Kerala High Court
Rajeev G. Memorial Labour Contract ... vs Udayan Vilathapuram on 9 June, 2023
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 19TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 21633 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
1 THE RAJEEV G. MEMORIAL LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE
SOCIETY LTD NO.D 2489, ARUR P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE,
PIN: 673 507, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE RAJEEV.G.MEMORIAL
LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.D 2489
ARUR P.O., VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN: 673 507,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.
BY ADV SRI.P.P.JACOB
RESPONDENTS:
1 UDAYAN VILATHAPURAM, MEETHALERAYAROTH, KUNIKKAD P.O.,
PURAMERI, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE, PIN: 673 508.
2 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL, NANDANAM, TC 14/2057,
VANDROSE JUNCTION, SANSKRIT COLLEGE LANE, UNIVERSITY
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 034, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY.
3 THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT, KOZHIKODE (NORTH
WING), 5TH FLOOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING
FEDERATION BUILDING, ERANHIPALAM, NEAR PASSPORT OFFICE,
KOZHIKODE - 673 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADVS
SRI.M.P.PRABHAKARAN (PALAKKAD)
SMT MABLE C KURIAN-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 21633/16
2
JUDGMENT
I refrain from speaking in detail or making observations because, the parties are also ad idem that this matter will require to be remanded to the Arbitration Court for disposal.
2. Suffice to say, in Ext.P3, the Arbitration Court set aside the Enquiry Report settled by the petitioner - Society against the 1st respondent and allowed the parties to lead evidence; but still confirmed the original order of punishment, holding that the guilt against him stood proved and since he had not filed an Appeal against it. The Kerala Co-operative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short), thereafter, on the Appeal filed by the 1st respondent, issued Ext.P4 order setting aside Ext.P3 and then remanding the matter to the Sub Committee of the Society for a fresh enquiry. This has been challenged by the petitioner - Society.
3. Sri.P.P.Jacob - learned counsel for the petitioner - Society, submitted that Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal is in error because it ought to have remanded the matter to the Arbitration WPC 21633/16 3 Court, but solely on the question of imposition of punishment and nothing else. He conceded that the Arbitration Court was wrong in having approved the original dismissal order, after having found the 1st respondent guilty through the de novo enquiry conducted; and hence prayed that the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition be granted.
4. In response, Sri.M.P.Prabhakaran - learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submitted that Ext.P3 is totally untenable because it has entered into conclusions which are contrary to the evidence lead by the parties. He added that, in any event, the Arbitration Court could not have approved the punishment imposed by the President of the Society earlier, particularly when the Enquiry Report had been set aside, after having found it to be vitiated; and hence that Ext.P5 order is without error.
5. I must say that this Court cannot grant imprimatur to either Ext.P3 or Ext.P4 because the Arbitration Court had initially found the enquiry conducted by the Society to be vitiated and had set aside the report, thus allowing the parties to lead evidence before it. Obviously, it ought to have then examined the evidence WPC 21633/16 4 and decided whether the 1st respondent is guilty or not and then should have proceeded to impose punishment. Instead of doing so, the Arbitration Court found the 1st respondent guilty, based on the new evidence on record, and then confirmed the earlier order of punishment imposed by the Society.
6. The learned Tribunal rightly found that this procedure was wrong and then set aside Ext.P3; but then allowed the sub committee of the Society to conduct a fresh enquiry. I am afraid that both the courses adopted by the Arbitration Court and the Tribunal are incorrect because, Ext.P3 obviously cannot obtain favour in law.
7. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the entire issue will have to be reconsidered by the Arbitration Court, for which purpose, Ext.P3 will certainly have to be set aside. This is more so because, the Arbitration Court must reassess the evidence on record and decide whether the 1 st respondent is guilty and then issue necessary corollary orders as are warranted under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and Rules.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set WPC 21633/16 5 aside Exts.P3 and P4; with a consequential direction to the Arbitration Court to reconsider the ARC filed by the 1 st respondent and issue appropriate final orders, after affording both sides necessary opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 21633/16
6
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21633/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ARC.178/2011 FILED BY
THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE THIRD
RESPONDENT
P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INTERIM AWARD IN
A.R.C 178/11 PASSED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT DATED 15/10/2012
P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE AWARD IN A.R.C
178/2011 DATED 15/9/2015
P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
A.P.7/2016 DATED 24/5/2016