Case at a Glance
A peon who had served a service co-operative bank since 2008 was dismissed by the President of the Society by order dated 7 December 2023. Instead of appealing to the Society’s Executive Committee under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, he raised a dispute before the Labour Court, Kozhikode, which held his claim maintainable. The Kerala High Court dismissed the Society’s writ petition, holding, in line with the Supreme Court in Annamma K.A. and the decision in Veerankavu, that an employee who meets the Industrial Disputes Act criteria may approach the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) without first exhausting the departmental appeal.
The second respondent joined Chokkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. as a peon on 30 May 2008. He was suspended over allegations of grave irregularity and insubordination and, after an enquiry, the President of the Society imposed the penalty of dismissal by order dated 7 December 2023. He did not file the appeal provided under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 to the Executive Committee, but instead raised ID No. 46/2025 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The Society applied to have the claim dismissed as not maintainable. By interim order dated 12 June 2026, the Labour Court held the claim maintainable. The Society challenged that order, arguing that under Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 management vests in the Committee, so only the Executive Committee’s appellate order is the Society’s final decision, and relying on the Division Bench ruling in Managing Director, State Bank of India v. S. Murali, (2026) 06 KL CK 1214 (2026 (5) KHC 64).
The Key Question Before the Court
Must a co-operative society employee dismissed by the President first exhaust the internal appeal under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before raising an industrial dispute before the Labour Court?
Concurrent Remedies and the Limits of S. Murali
The Court distinguished S. Murali, explaining that it dealt with when limitation under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act begins, holding it runs from the appellate order, and did not decide whether an employee must exhaust a society’s internal appeal. Under Rule 198(3) and (4), the President is the original punishing authority and the Executive Committee acts only as an appellate authority, so the President’s order is itself the penalty imposed on the employee.
Relying on the Supreme Court in Annamma K.A. v. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd., (2018) 01 SC CK 0059 (2018 (1) KHC 258), that the Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act confer concurrent jurisdiction, and on Veerankavu Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. v. C. Sindhu Kumari (2025 (1) KHC 421), the Court held that “the petitioner is entitled to approach the Labour Court without exhausting his appellate remedy,” provided the requirements of workman, industrial dispute and industry are met. Following Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Basil Scaria (2025 KHC OnLine 10650), it added that courts should not interfere with tribunal proceedings on preliminary issues, as the final award can be challenged.
What the Court Actually Held
- The President is the original punishing authority under Rule 198(3); his dismissal order is the penalty, and the Executive Committee only hears appeals under Rule 198(4).
- An employee who satisfies the Industrial Disputes Act criteria may approach the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) without exhausting the Rule 198(4) appeal.
- S. Murali concerns the start of limitation under Section 2A(3), not exhaustion of internal remedies, and does not apply.
- The writ petition was dismissed and the Labour Court may proceed with ID No. 46/2025 in accordance with law.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It confirms a direct route to the Labour Court for dismissed employees of Kerala co-operative societies.
- It clarifies the scope of S. Murali, which co-operative employers had relied on to resist claims.
- It discourages writ challenges to preliminary maintainability rulings by Labour Courts.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Employees
- You may approach the Labour Court directly against a dismissal by the President, if you qualify as a workman.
- Choosing the Labour Court does not require first filing the internal appeal.
- Watch the limitation under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
For Counsel
- Rely on Annamma K.A. and Veerankavu on concurrent jurisdiction and non-exhaustion.
- Distinguish S. Murali as a limitation ruling.
- Expect the High Court to decline interference with preliminary rulings, following Basil Scaria.
Key Takeaways
- The Kerala High Court upheld the Labour Court’s finding that the claim was maintainable.
- Internal appeal under Rule 198(4) is not a precondition for an industrial dispute.
- The Co-operative Societies Act and Industrial Disputes Act remedies are concurrent.
- The Labour Court proceedings in ID No. 46/2025 will continue.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a dismissed co-operative society employee go directly to the Labour Court in Kerala?
Yes, according to this judgment, if the employee satisfies the Industrial Disputes Act criteria of workman, industrial dispute and industry. The internal appeal under Rule 198(4) need not be exhausted first.
What did S. Murali decide?
As explained by the Court, S. Murali held that limitation under Section 2A(3) runs from the appellate order; it did not hold that the internal appeal must be exhausted.
Why did the High Court not interfere?
It found no reason to interfere with the Labour Court’s order and noted that preliminary rulings should not ordinarily be interfered with, since the final award can be challenged.
Conclusion
Chokkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court reaffirms that employees of co-operative societies in Kerala have a choice of forum. A dismissal by the President can be taken straight to the Labour Court, without first going through the society’s own appellate committee.
Practical takeaway: Dismissed co-operative employees who are workmen can file under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act directly, while employers should focus on the merits rather than a preliminary non-exhaustion objection.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com