TUMBOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD Vs. SOBHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner in these Original Petitions (Civil) is the Thumboor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.359, Thrissur District and the second petitioner is the Managing Committee of the said first petitioner Co-operative Society Bank. It is stated that ARC Nos.63 and 64 of 2012 was filed by the first respondent concerned in these two cases challenging the domestic enquiry initiated against the first respondent concerned and for the alleged misappropriation and the consequential dismissal from service of the respondent incumbent concerned. A preliminary enquiry as to the validity of the domestic enquiry report was raised by the first respondent before the Arbitration Court. The Arbitration Court heard the preliminary issue and by Exhibit- P1 interim orders in these two cases had held that the domestic enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry in a proper manner and that there are no mistakes or flaw in the said report and the natural justice have been complied with. Further it is stated that the first respondent had challenged Exhibit-P1 before the Co-operative Tribunal and the Tribunal by impugned Exhibit-P2 judgment had set aside Exhibit-P1 interim order of the Arbitration Court. It is contended by the petitioner that the award passed by the Arbitration Court under Section 70(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 alone is appealable before the Tribunal and an interlocutory order as the one in Exhibit-P1 in these two cases which is passed under Section 70(2) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act is excluded from the purview of Section 82(1)(a) (e) of the said Act and therefore, it is not appealable under Section 82 before the second respondent Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. In a similar case, the Tribunal as per Exhibit-P3 had refused to interfere on an interim order passed by the Arbitration Court and had returned the appeal memorandum without even numbering it. But, in the instant two cases, the Tribunal has interfered with Exhibit-P1 interim order in these two cases as per the impugned Exhibit-P2 judgments. It is contended that the interference by the Tribunal as against Exhibit-P1 interim order by passing the impugned Exhibit-P2 judgment in both these cases is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) Heard Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Thampan Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent in these two cases and Sri.M.Paul Varghese, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the second respondent.

(3.) Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, had reiterated the abovesaid submissions and contentions raised in the Original Petitions (Civil). Sri.Thampan Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, would seriously urge that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction and further that the petitioners are estopped from raising the present contentions and would pointedly submit that it was the petitioners herein who submitted before this court in Annexure-R1(b) judgment that the remedy of the petitioners who is aggrieved by such an interlocutory orders passed by the Arbitration Court is to file a statutory appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal. Further it is pointed out that the petitioners herein had also specifically pleaded in Annexure-R1(a) counter affidavit filed in the writ proceedings referred to in Annexure-R1(b) that the remedy of the first respondent herein who is aggrieved by such an interlocutory orders passed by the arbitration court is to file a statutory appeal before the Tribunal. It is true that the petitioners have raised such a submission that the impugned Exhibit-P1 interlocutory orders are appealable before the Tribunal. Since the question of jurisdiction is purely a question of law, it cannot be said that the petitioners are legally estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction. So the main matter to be decided by this Court is as to whether the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal has got jurisdiction to entertain a challenge as against an interlocutory order passed by the Arbitration Court as in Exhibit-P1 which led to the passing of the impugned Exhibit-P2 judgments in these two cases. Section 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, which deals with awards and disputes, provides as follows :