AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sunil Thomas, J
The writ petitioner was an employee of the respondent/co-operative bank, and was dismissed from service on 26.08.1991, after conducting an
enquiry. The termination was challenged by him in ARC No.20/2017 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court. The reliefs sought was for recovery
of damages for illegal termination. After the pleadings were completed, both sides were heard and by Ext.P8 award produced in the petition, the
Arbitration court held that, S.69(1)(h) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act did not have application to the facts of the case, in the absence of a
separate prayer in the arbitration petition for setting aside the enquiry report and the consequent termination order. It was also observed that, had a
proper relief been sought with regard to the setting aside of the enquiry report and the consequent termination order, same would have been covered
within S.69(1)(c) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Aggrieved by the above award, the writ petitioner approached this Court. Though notice
was served on the respondent/bank, they did not choose to appear and hence, by judgment dated 24.02.2021, the writ petition was allowed. Ext.P8
award was set aside and the writ petitioner was permitted to file appropriate application for amendment of the plaint, if he proposed. It was based on a
finding that, there were supporting pleadings challenging the termination order, though a specific prayer was not incorporated in the plaint. It was
directed that, after making amendment, the parties shall proceed for trial.
The above judgment is sought to be reviewed at the instance of the bank and its secretary and the President. Heard both sides and examined the
records.
According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, though notice was served on the bank and they had entrusted the matter with the
counsel, due to an inadvertent omission, vakkalath could not be filed. Hence, valuable defence could not be set up at the time of hearing. It is pertinent
to note that, though this point was vehemently marshalled by the learned counsel for the review petitioner at the time of hearing, such a pleading is
conspicuously absent in the review petition. There is no whisper as to why the review petitioner remained absent, when the writ petition was taken up.
The review petition is laid on various grounds, essentially touching upon the merits of the judgment of this Court. The contention set up by the
review petitioner is that, against the award, there was an effective and efficacious remedy of appeal. It was not availed by the writ petitioner. It was
also contended that the proceedings before the Arbitration Court itself was not maintainable. Though the non maintainability of the arbitration
proceedings before the court was specifically pleaded in the written statement, no attempt was made by the petitioner to amend the ARC. Hence, it
was contended that the writ petition was not sustainable.
Evidently, there is absolutely no whisper regarding any facts constituting a ground for review as mandated under law. Though the learned counsel
for the review petitioner vehemently contended that, the writ petition itself was not maintainable in the light of availability of alternative remedy of
appeal. Essentially, the writ petition was laid on a premise that the court below committed a serious legal error in not properly appreciating the facts
and without looking into the pleadings of the case. All the grounds for review are based on settled legal principles.
Having considered this, I am satisfied that, absolutely no ground for review is made out. Accordingly, the review petition fails and is dismissed.