E.V. Raghavan vs The Secretary to Government and Others

Special Leave granted.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court committed error in holding that the Revision was maintainable before the State Government u/s 87 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

It appears that a dispute relating to conditions of service was raised by the employees of the Co-operative Society and the same was referred by the Registrar to the Assistant Registrar for adjudication in accordance with Section 70 of the Act. The Assistant Registrar to whom the dispute was referred decided the dispute on merit and while doing so he rejected the objections raised on behalf of the Respondents No. 5 that the matter referred to him did not constitute a dispute as defined by Clause (i) of Section 1 of the Act. Thus the Assistant Registrar disposed of the dispute on merit and also the objections of the Respondent No. 2 by a composite order The Respondent No. 2 thereupon filed a Revision Petition before the State Government u/s 87 of the Act. The State Govt. took cognizance of the Revision and issued an interim order. The Appellant filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Kerala High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the State Govt. in entertaining the Revision. A learned Single Judge held that the State Govt. had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision. On Letters Patent Appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the State Govt. had jurisdiction to hear the Revision in view of Section 69 (4) of the Act. Hence this appeal.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that since Assistant Registrar had passed a composite order deciding the dispute on merit as well as the objections relating to his jurisdiction, proper remedy for the Respondent was to file appeal u/s 82 of the Act before the Appellate Authority constituted under the. Act. Since the dispute had been decided on merit the appellate authority could decide the question relating to jurisdiction also. Section 87 which provides for revision before the Registrar or the State Govt. lays down that. Revision would lie only in those matters where no appeal lies. Since in the instant case the dispute had already been decided on merits, appeal was maintainable u/s 82 of the Act. Therefore no revision was maintainable u/s 87 of the Act. We, therefore, hold that the State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the Revision against the order of the Assistant Registrar.

We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The Respondent No. 5 has liberty to file appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.