The Kasaragod Co-Operative Town Bank Ltd. vs The Kerala Co-Operative Tribunal

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The fifth respondent retired on 31.12.2009. At the time of retirement, the fifth respondent was paid the entire retirement benefits. The fifth respondent thereafter sought the benefit of a revised scale of pay which was sanctioned on 18.8.2010. For granting the benefits of the said pay revision the fifth respondent filed representation before the third respondent, Joint Registrar, and he in turn forwarded the said representation to the General Manager of the petitioner Bank. The petitioner Bank thereupon sent a letter to the fifth respondent informing him that Ext. P1 has not been implemented due to the financial constraints of the Bank. The fifth respondent hence filed W.P.(C) No. 15762/2011 before this Court, which was dismissed by Ext. P1 judgment.

The fifth respondent thereafter approached the fourth respondent for settlement of his dispute. This was contrary to the directions in Ext. P1 to approach the Arbitration Court. Ext. P3 is the order passed by the Registrar which was challenged by the petitioner Bank before the Tribunal which was also upheld by the Tribunal as per Ext. P5. The only contention raised by the petitioner Bank is that under section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the fifth respondent ought to have approached the Arbitration Court, the issue being covered under section 69(2)(d).

Clause (h) of section 69(1) distinguishes the disputes into monetary and non-monetary disputes. With respect to monetary disputes, the jurisdiction is conferred on the Registrar and with respect to non-monetary disputes on the Arbitration Court. Clause (d) of section 69(2) speaks of disputes arising in connection with the employment of officers and servants of the different classes of societies including their promotion and inter se seniority. The dispute is one of denial of pay revision which definitely arises in connection with the employment of officers and servants of the society. Going by the binding precedent reported in F.A.C.T. Service Co-operative Societies Vs. Balakrishna Menon K. and Others, it cannot be found otherwise.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would in fact distinguish the said decision. Therein a representation was made before the Registrar and the order passed was sought to be upheld under sections 66 and 66A of the Act. The present case would stand on a different footing since the fifth respondent had filed an application before the Registrar under section 69 itself. Though the fifth respondent filed a petition under section 69, such petition ought to have been filed before the Arbitration Court and not before the Registrar. In the present case, the petitioner was specifically directed to approach the Arbitration Court by Ext. P1. The petitioner consciously and deliberately approached another forum, which has no jurisdiction. The defect in jurisdiction hence cannot be ignored.

However, it is to be noticed that the Bank''s application before the Joint Registrar (General) to implement the revision of pay with effect from 1.1.2010, has been allowed, only with a rider. Ext. R5(d) indicates that such sanction has not been accorded in the matter of retired employees. The learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Bank has filed an appeal before the Government under section 83 of the Act and the same is pending. In the context of Ext. R5(d), despite the defect in jurisdiction, the order of the Arbitrator has to be upheld. This Court is not convinced that, the defect in jurisdiction alone should result in interference under Article 226; of an otherwise proper order. Reliance can be garnered from Mohammad Swalleh and Others Vs. Third Addl. District Judge, Meerut and Another, . It is to be noticed that the dispute raised is purely a monetary dispute though the revision of pay is an incidence of service. No adjudication as to the terms of service arise hereunder. The question raised is only as to whether the pay revision order is applicable as directed and implemented by the Government from 1.1.2008. The same stands affirmed in favour of the petitioner by Ext. R5(d). Unless the same is overturned the respondent would have to be paid such benefits. Hence subject only to the proceedings taken by the Bank against Ext. R5(d) the orders of the Arbitrator as upheld by the Tribunal is sustained.

The writ petition is disposed of.