The petitioner is aggrieved with the proceedings taken by the 2nd respondent, an employee of the Bank, before the Joint Registrar (General) specifically with respect to service conditions especially relating to the promotion, Grade promotion, revision in pay, increment and so on and so forth. It is evident that, as per an amendment of 02.01.2003, the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 was amended incorporating sub-clause (d) in sub-section (2) of Section 69 wherein service matters were also included. From the date of the said amendment, disputes with regard to service of an employee of a Co-operative Societies would come within the purview of the Arbitration Court and not the Joint Registrar.
WP(C).19706/10 2
2. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent however, would contend that Ext.P2 was confirmed in Ext.P5 before the Government. None of the factual aspects which have been found by Ext.P2 and confirmed in appeal, has been agitated before this Court in the writ petition. It is also stated that Article 226 of the Constitution of India being a discretionary remedy, this would not be a fit case where discretion could be exercised especially since, the 2nd respondent, who was the complainant before the Joint Registrar, is an aged person who retired 20 years back.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Bank that the 2nd respondent retired only on 31.01.2008 and it was pursuant to that, the proceedings were taken before the Joint Registrar. In any event, it is to be noticed that Section 69(2)(d) specifically WP(C).19706/10 3 brought service matters within the purview of the Arbitration Court and from that date onwards, jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar, if at all exercised before that date, would stand excluded.
4. In such circumstances, the appropriate remedy available to the 2nd respondent was to approach the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Act. For the short ground raised with respect to the lack of jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that Article 226 definitely has to be invoked and Ext.P2 order, as confirmed in Ext.P5, be set aside. The extra-ordinary power definitely can be invoked when an authority acts totally without jurisdiction; even when an alternate remedy is available.
5. It is made clear that the 2nd respondent would have the remedy to approach the Arbitration Court especially since the WP(C).19706/10 4 petitioner had been bona fide proceeding before the authority which did not have jurisdiction and there was also an interim stay of the orders passed from the stage of the admission of the present writ petition. Petitioner could avail of the statutory remedies and also could seek condonation of the delay on the ground of the bona fide proceedings, the order in which has now been set aside by this Court invoking its extraordinary powers. The time prescribed to initiate proceedings, if any, shall run only from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//