MANIKANTAN NAIR Vs. CO OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3rd respondent society referred a dispute under S.69 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 claiming a sum of Rs. 4,094 09 from the petitioners herein on the basis of a bond executed by them in favour of that society. The claim as aforesaid was founded on the audit report submitted under S.63 of the Act. The said claim was agitated ex parte. The arbitrator passed an award allowing the claim of the society against the two petitioners herein. The petitioners thereupon filed an application to set aside the ex parte award. The arbitrator dismissed that application. The petitioner thereupon filed a revision before the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal, 1st respondent herein. That Tribunal allowed the revision. As a result the arbitration case was again tried. The Arbitrator at the close of the trial of the arbitration case passed Ext. P2 award, thereby again upholding the claim of the society. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the same before the 1st respondent Tribunal. By Ext. P3 judgment the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming Ext. P2 award. This was on 16-2-1977. The petitioners at this juncture approached this Court impugning Ext. P2 award and Ext. P3 appellate decision. This was as per the writ petition, O. P. 1635 of 1977. By Ext. P4 judgment dated 21-7-1977 this Court dismissed the said writ petition. This Court in Ext. P4 judgment said that "the arbitrator as well as the appellate Tribunal have considered the evidence in the case and found that the petitioners are liable", and further that "this finding based on appreciation of evidence does not call for interference in these proceedings". It was for these reasons that this Court refused to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution in O. P. No. 1635 of 1977.

(2.) After this Court refused to exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction the petitioner filed Ext. P5 application for review before the 1st respondent Tribunal. This application is dated 27-7-1977. The 1st respondent Tribunal dismissed that application as per Ext. P6 judgment. The Tribunal appears to have proceeded as if there are certain errors apparent on the face of the record. However, the Tribunal found it difficult to review its Ext. P3 decision for the reason, as stated by that Tribunal Ext. P4 decision in O. P. 1635 of 1977 stands in the way thereof.

(3.) The petitioners impugn Ext. P5 dismissal of the review application. They contend that despite the refusal by this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in respect of Ext. P3 judgment of the 1st respondent Tribunal that Tribunal has power to review the same for the reason the records of the case are still within its power and not within the power of this Court. This is the question that arises for decision herein.