M G NEELAKANDAN NAIR Vs. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has challenged the action of the Administrator (second respondent) in settling a dispute pending before the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act (first respondent) causing financial burden on the Manikkara Service Cooperative Bank. Petitioner is a member of the Bank and was its President for a period of three years which ended on 30-9-1992.

(2.) Third respondent was dismissed on charge of gross insubordination, dereliction of duties and misappropriation of funds after conducting domestic enquiry. Challenging the dismissal third respondent filed appeal before the first respondent. While the appeal was pending, respondents 2 and 3 filed a statement before the first respondent and settled the dispute. As per the settlement, third respondent was allowed to rejoin duty on 4-1-1993 with continuity of service and 50 per cent of backwages from 29-6-1992 to 4-1-1993. The period of suspension of the third respondent is treated as eligible leave. Contention of the petitioner is that the appeal filed by the third respondent before the first respondent was ill conceived and that first respondent had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and consequently the settlement reached between respondents 2 and 3 in a wrong forum cannot have any legal validity.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the third respondent chose the wrong forum in filing the appeal and as the appellate authority thoroughly lacked jurisdiction in entertaining the appeal, Ext. P-1 settlement cannot have any legal force and it has to be necessarily quashed. R.198 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules enumerates the punishments that could be imposed on any member of the establishment of a cooperative society. R.198(4) categorically provides that an appeal shall lie against every order imposing a penalty to the competent appellate authority. The table under R.198(4) makes the position clear. Under R.198(4) the competent authority to dispose of the appeal against secretary/Manager or other Chief Executive Officer and all employees drawing a pay of Rs. 300/- and above is the Board of Management or Executive Committee with regard to penalties under (a) to (c) and Board of Management so far as penalties under (d) to (h) of R.198(1). In the case of all other employees it is the president so far as penalties under (a) to (c) and Executive Committee/Board of Management so far as penalties under (d) to (h) of R.198(1). As the third respondent was only a junior clerk, the competent authority to dispose of the appeal against the order of dismissal is the Executive Committee/Board of Management. Third respondent instead of filing appeal as provided under R.198(4) has chosen to file it before the first respondent. In view of R.198(4), the appeal filed by the third respondent before the first respondent was not maintainable as the latter lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.