Josephine K.J., Senior clerk vs State of Kerala and Pallipuram Service Co-Operative Bank

P.N. Ravindran, J.—Ext.P9 order passed by the President of the third Respondent bank, a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is under challenge in this writ petition. The brief facts of the case are as follows.

The Petitioner entered service as Appraiser/Typist in the third Respondent society on 16.9.1991. She was promoted to the category of Senior Clerk by Ext.P6 order dated 1.6.2006 and her pay was also fixed in that category. In the year 2011 the Audit Wing in the office of the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies objected to the promotion given to the Petitioner on the ground that she has not passed the Junior Diploma/Higher Diploma in Co-operation and therefore she is ineligible to be promoted. The President of the third Respondent society thereupon issued Ext.P7 notice dated 2.5.2011 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause why she should not be reverted to the category of Appraiser with retrospective effect from 1.6.2006. As directed in Ext.P7 the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 reply wherein she contended inter alia that she was promoted to the category of Senior Clerk in view of Circular No. 7/2003 dated 7.11.2003 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The President of the bank thereupon heard the Petitioner in person and passed Ext.P9 order dated 14.5.2011 ordering her reversion to the category of Appraiser with effect from 1.6.2006. Hence this writ petition challenging Ext.P9 and seeking a declaration that the Petitioner''s promotion to the category of Senior Clerk with effect from 1.6.2006 is in order.

The third Respondent bank as well as additional Respondents 4 to 8 have filed counter affidavits. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed by Respondents 4 to 8.

Shorn of details, what is challenged is an order passed by the President of the co-operative society where the Petitioner is working, cancelling the promotion granted to her and reverting her to the post which she held prior to the order of promotion. The dispute raised by the Petitioner is thus a dispute relating to promotion. Sub-section (1) of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 provides that all disputes between the employees of a co-operative society and the employer society shall be decided by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and not by any other court. This Court has interpreting Section 69(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 held that all disputes raised by employees of societies, including disputes relating to seniority and promotion, have to be resolved by the Co-operative Arbitration Court and not by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies invoking the power conferred on him under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. That apart, Sub-section (2) of Section 70 of the Act empowers the Co-operative Arbitration Court to pass interim orders pending resolution of the main dispute. From the decision of the Co-operative Arbitration Court an appeal lies to the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. Thus, on an examination of the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, I am satisfied that the Petitioner has got a meaningful and effective alternative remedy wherein she can agitate all her contentions. I therefore deem it appropriate to relegate the Petitioner to the alternative remedy available to her. However, having regard to the fact that she has been working as Senior Clerk from 1.6.2006 and this Court, while admitting the writ petition, had granted an interim order staying her reversion and the said order of stay is still in force, I also deem it appropriate to direct that for a period of two weeks from today, the order of reversion shall stand stayed so as to enable the Petitioner to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court and seek appropriate interim orders.

I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition reserving liberty with the Petitioner to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court seeking redressal of her grievances. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. However, for a period of two weeks from today, Ext.P9 order shall stand stayed so as to enable the Petitioner to move the Co-operative Arbitration Court and seek appropriate interim orders.