RATNARAJAN Vs. KERALA KERAKARSHAKA SAHAKARANA FEDERATION LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext. P-12 order of suspension passed against him by the 4th respondent. The petitioner is an employee of the 1st respondent. He is working at Kanhangad, Kasaragod District, as an Incharge of Copra Procurement. Advocate P.M. Mohammed Shiraz, who appears for the 1st respondent, raises a preliminary question regarding the maintainability of the Writ Petition itself. According to the counsel, the dispute in this Writ Petition, being one between an employee and a Co-operative Society, can be determined only in accordance with the provisions of Section 69 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for short). The Learned Counsel also relies on the decision of this Court in Edava Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Co-operative Arbitration Court, 2008 3 KerLT 780 .

(2.) Advocate K.R. Ganesh, who appears for the petitioner, relies on another decision of this Court in Surabhi Employees Trade Union Congress v. Kerala State Handicrafts Apex Co-operative Society Ltd., 2002 2 KerLT 77 to contend that the Kerala Kerakarshaka Sahakarana Federation Limited No. 4370 ('KERAFED' for short) being an Apex Society is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is also contended that Section 2(a) of the Act defines an Apex Society separately. The Apex Society being a separate and distinct category of society not specifically made mention of in Section 69 of the Act, the remedy under the said provision is not available to the petitioner. At any rate, it is contended that the petitioner being in Kasaragod, the said remedy is not an efficacious alternative remedy to the one under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) I have heard the learned Special Government Pleader Sri D. Somasundaram also. According to the learned Special Government Pleader, though different categories of societies have been separately defined by the Act, all societies are treated equally and without any distinction for the purpose of Section 69 of the Act. The Act, apart from defining an Apex Society, also defines various other societies. Therefore, the interpretation canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner if accepted, would have the effect of excluding certain categories of societies from the purview of Section 69 of the Act which is not justified. Such a consequence would also be disastrous, it is contended.