Admittedly the petitioners were aggrieved with the promotion of the party respondents herein, who were alleged to be juniors of the petitioners. The promotion itself was effected by Exhibit P10 as on 04.10.2012 and the petitioners were immediately before this Court with the present writ petition.
2. Ideally the petitioners should have approached the Arbitration Court under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 [for brevity “the Act”], since by Section 69(2), the disputes relating to service are to be agitated before the Arbitration Court. It may not be proper for this Court to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution when there is an alternate remedy available. True, the matter has been pending here from 2012. Since factual aspects are to be considered, this Court is not inclined to consider the same in a writ petition. The petitioners are, hence, relegated to the alternate remedy before the Arbitration Court. The delay would be of no WP(C).No.27255 of 2012 - 2 -
consequence, since the petitioners were before this Court within time and the same is proceeding initiated bona fide.
3. In the above circumstance, if the petitioners take up the matter before the Arbitration Court within a period of two months from today, the Arbitration Court shall entertain the same, without looking into the aspect of delay and consider the claim of the petitioners on merits. If proceedings are initiated by the petitioners within the time stipulated, the Arbitration Court shall consider an expeditious disposal of the same; taking into account the fact that the issue has been pending in this Court from 2012 onwards.
The writ petition is closed as above, without prejudice to the contentions of either parties.
vku.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )