JANAKEEYA CO Vs. PRESIDENT, JANAKEEYA CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 10.8.2017 of the learned Single Judge, finally disposing of W.P.C. Nos. 8400, 21460 and 24148 of 2017. The writ appeals are filed by respondents 3 and 4 in W.P.C.No.21460 of 2017 and the writ petitioner in W.P.C.No.24148 of 2017 respectively.

(2.) The appellants in W.A.No. 1740 of 2017 are the Co-operative Society and its President whereas the appellants in W.A.No.1765 of 2017 is the President of the Society. The dispute concerns a disciplinary action initiated by the Society against the Secretary of the Society Smt.Reeja P. As per the judgment appealed against, this Court found that a domestic enquiry into the allegations levelled against the employee was pending. Therefore, all the writ petitions were disposed of directing that the enquiry proceedings be finalised within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. In the meanwhile, the Society was directed to reinstate the suspended employee, for the reason that as per Ext.P7 order in W.P.C.No. 24148 of 2017, no permission was granted by the Joint Registrar to continue the employee under suspension. Since the direction issued by the learned Single Judge is limited only to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within a specified time, we are not satisfied that any interference therewith is called for. The learned Single Judge has also not considered the respective contentions of the parties on the merits.

(3.) However, according to the counsel for the appellants, the enquiry proceedings are already complete and on the basis of the report of the enquiry, the employee has already been dismissed from service. Therefore, the direction to reinstate the employee in the changed circumstances, is required to be vacated. It is also pointed out that, C.O.C.No.1882 of 2017 initiated by the dismissed employee is pending and that, a direction has been issued by this Court either to reinstate the employee or to appear in person. Adv. P.J.Mathew, who appears for the first respondent (dismissed employee) submits that, since his client has already been dismissed from service, it will not necessary to reinstate the employee at this stage. The first respondent has challenged the dismissal order passed against her in A.R.C.No.3 of 2018, which is pending before the Arbitration Court, Calicut. The parties shall abide by the outcome of the said proceedings, it is submitted.