CHOKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.M 602, vs LABOUR COURT,
- Court
- Kerala High Court
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 1
2026:KER:81613
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
RD
FRIDAY, THE 23 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1948
WP(C) NO.26370 OF 2026
PETITIONER:
CHOKKAD SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.M 602,
P.O. CHOKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 679395
BY ADVS.SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 LABOUR COURT, KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION,
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673020
2 JISHAL A., S/O. ABDUL KHADER, ERAGUVILA VEEDU,
PANNIKOTTUMUNDA, CHOKKAD P.O., NILAMBUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679332
BY ADVS.SRI.AJITH S.
SMT.MAYURI A. NAIR
SRI.MUHAMMED OWAIS
SRI.M.PRAVEEN KUMAR, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.10.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 2
2026:KER:81613
C.R.
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.26370 of 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
rd
Dated this the 23 day of October, 2026
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order in I.A.No.55 of
2026 in I.D.No.46 of 2025 on the file of the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The
petitioner is a co-operative society registered as per the provisions of the
nd
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. The 2
respondent entered into the service of the petitioner-Society as Peon on
30.05.2008. On account of the allegations of grave irregularity and
nd
insubordination, the 2 respondent was placed under suspension, and after
conducting a detailed enquiry as per Ext.P4, he was imposed a punishment of
nd
dismissal from service. Petitioner submits that, against Ext.P4, the 2
respondent has an effective remedy of filing an appeal before the Executive
Committee/Board of Management, as provided under Rule 198 (4) of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 [for short, ‘the Rules’] and without
nd
availing such remedy, the 2 respondent has directly approached the Labour
Court by filing I.D.No.46 of 2025. In the said proceedings, the petitioner-
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 3
2026:KER:81613
Society filed Ext.P9 application as I.A.No.55 of 2026 to consider the
nd
maintainability of the claim petition filed by the 2 respondent. Ultimately, the
said interlocutory application was rejected as per Ext.P11, holding that the
claim petition is maintainable before the Labour Court. It is aggrieved by the
same that the present writ petition has been filed.
2. The contention raised by the petitioner is that punishment is
imposed as per Ext.P4 by the President of the Society and that an appeal is
provided against the same before the Executive Committee/Board of
Management of the Society. Relying on Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act, 1969 (for short, ‘the Act’), it is contended that since the
management of the Society is vested to its Committee, naturally the decision
on a punishment imposed on the employee can only be by the Executive
Committee/Board of Management and that only an order passed by the
Executive Committee/Board of Management in an appeal under Rule 198(4)
of the Rules could be treated as an order passed by the employer and only
such an order is amenable to a challenge before the Labour Court/ Co-
operative Arbitration Court. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel
for the petitioner is that only an order issued by the Executive Committee/
Board of Management in an appeal filed under Rule 198(4) of the Rules could
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 4
2026:KER:81613
be treated as a final order in the matter of disciplinary proceedings as against
nd
an employee and without exhausting the said remedy, the 2 respondent
cannot approach the Labour Court, as has been done in the present case. In
support of the said contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on
the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Managing Director, State Bank
of India v. S.Murali (2026 (5) KHC 64) .
nd
3. Learned Counsel for the 2 respondent would contend that
Ext.P11 order passed by the Labour Court, Kozhikode is strictly in
accordance with law and no interference is called for. Against Ext.P4 order
nd
imposing punishment on the 2 respondent, he could approach the Labour
Court without availing the statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the
Executive Committee/Board of Management as provided under Rule 198(4) of
the Rules. It is further contended that the petitioner cannot challenge the
present order wherein the Tribunal has considered the question of
maintainability, by filing a writ petition, since the parties have adequate
remedy to challenge the Award and such interference at this stage could only
delay the speedy disposal of the case. In support of the said contention, the
nd
learned Counsel for the 2 respondent relies on the judgments of this Court in
Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Basil Scaria (2025 KHC
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 5
2026:KER:81613
OnLine 10650) , Veerankavu Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. V.
C.Sindhu Kumari (2025 (1) KHC 421) and Channapetta Service Co-
operative Bank Ltd. v. G.Anithakumari (2026 KHC 474) .
4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.
5. The only question to be considered is as to whether Ext.P5 order
nd
issued by the President of the Society dismissing the 2 respondent from
service could be treated as a final order in the matter of initiation of
nd
disciplinary proceedings as against the 2 respondent or only an order
passed in appeal by the Executive Committee/Board of Management under
Rule 198(4) of the Rules could only be treated as a final order. The contention
raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, based on Section 28 of the
Act, is that the entrustment of the management of the Society is to its
Committee and, therefore, the order passed by the Executive
Committee/Board of Management in an appeal under Rule 198(4) of the
Rules only could be treated as an order of the Society and only challenging
the same that a proceeding could be initiated before the Labour Court or the
Co-operative Arbitration Court.
6. In S.Murali ’s case [supra], the Division was considering the
calculation of the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 2A(2)
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 6
2026:KER:81613
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [for short, ‘the I.D. Act’] and held that the
period of limitation under Section 2A(3) of the I.D. Act will only begin from the
date on which the punishment becomes enforceable as against the workmen,
ie., from the date of order of the statutory Appellate Authority, confirming the
order of punishment and not from the date of the original order of the
Disciplinary Authority. That was a case where the Tribunal declined to
entertain the challenge against an order of imposing punishment of
compulsory retirement, holding that three year period has already expired
from the date of the original order of punishment and the Court held that the
order of punishment becomes final only when it is confirmed in appeal and
since there is a possibility, the Disciplinary Authority can propose a
punishment and the Appellate Authority can vary, modify or vacate it and in
such cases, it is only the latter order which will cause any consequence to the
delinquent. The said decision cannot have any application in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, since that was a case where the Court
held that the limitation for challenging an order of punishment will start only
from the date on which the Appellate Authority has passed an order. Rule 198
of the Rules deals with the disciplinary proceedings. Rule 198(3) provides for
the authority competent to impose the various penalties on different
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 7
2026:KER:81613
categories of employees, and going by the said Rule, the penalty could be
nd
imposed on the 2 respondent by the President of the Society. Clause (4)
deals with an appeal against an order imposing a penalty, and when the
punishment is imposed by the President, the appeal will lie to the Executive
Committee/Board of Management. Going by Rule 198(4), the Executive
Committee/Board of Management is an Appellate Authority and not an
original Authority to impose the punishment, and going by Rule 198(3), it is
nd
the President, who has the authority to impose a penalty on the 2
respondent. Therefore, when the Ext.P4 order was issued, the punishment
nd
had already been imposed on the 2 respondent, and the contention of the
learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the punishment could be deemed to
nd
have been imposed on the 2 respondent by the Society only when an order
under Rule 198(4) of the Rules is passed on an appeal before the Executive
Committee/Board of Management is only to be rejected. Therefore, Ext.P4
nd
should be treated as an order imposing punishment on the 2 respondent,
and it is his choice to file any appeal before the Appellate Authority, ie., before
the Executive Committee/Board of Management, as provided under Rule
198(4) of the Rules.
7. The question as to whether an employee of the Co-operative
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 8
2026:KER:81613
Society could approach the Labour Court as per the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 directly came up for consideration before the
Apex Court in Annamma K.A. v. Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital
Society Ltd. (2018 (1) KHC 258 ), and the Court held that the Kerala Co-
operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act, both possess and
enjoy the concurrent jurisdiction to decide any service dispute arising between
the co-operative society’s employer and his/her employer and that it is the
choice of the employee concerned to choose any one forum out of the two
forums available to him/her under the two Acts and to get his/her service
disputes decided subject to satisfying the test laid down under the I.D. Act
that the employee concerned is a ‘workman’, the dispute raised by him/her is
an ‘industrial dispute’ and the Co-operative Society is an ‘industry’ as defined
under the Act.
8 . In Veerankavu Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. [supra],
relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Annamma K.A. ’s case, cited
supra, this Court has held in paragraphs 11 & 14 as follows:
“11. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Annamma
(supra), the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial
Disputes Act both possess and enjoy the concurrent jurisdiction to
decide any service dispute arising between the Co-operative
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 9
2026:KER:81613
Society's employee and his/her employer. It is the discretion of the
employee concerned to choose any one of the forums. If the
employee opts for the forum under the Industrial Disputes Act,
he/she must fulfill the criteria of "workman”, "industrial dispute" and
"industry" as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act.
14. The respondent was dismissed from the service of
the Society on 01.09.2021. Though she filed an Arbitration case
before the Co-operative Arbitration Court, she withdrew the same
and filed an application before the Labour Court under Section
2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has no case that
the respondent will not come within the definition of 'workman'
under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act or that the dispute
is not industrial dispute under Section 2(k). Therefore, it was not
necessary for the respondent to invoke the remedy under Rule
198(4) of the KCS Rules before approaching the Labour Court
under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. To prefer an
application before the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, it is not necessary to exhaust the statutory
appellate remedy under the KCS Act or Rules. The writ petition is
devoid of merit. There is no reason to interfere with Ext.P5 order.
The industrial dispute before the Labour Court is maintainable and
the Labour Court may proceed with the dispute, in accordance with
law. Since the industrial dispute is of the year 2022, endeavour may
be made to dispose of the same expeditiously.”
9. This Court, in Veerankavu Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd.
[supra], has categorically held that it is not necessary for the employee to
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 10
2026:KER:81613
invoke the remedy under Rule 198(4) of the Rules, to file an appeal before the
Appellate Authority, ie. the Executive Committee/Board of Management,
before approaching the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the I.D. Act and
held that it is not necessary to exhaust the statutory appellate remedy under
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Acts and Rules. The said decision was
followed by this Court in Channapetta Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.
[supra].
10. Another aspect to be considered is that the order under
challenge in this writ petition is an order passed by the Labour Court rejecting
the preliminary objection regarding maintainability. In Basil Scaria ’s case,
cited supra, this Court has held that Court should not interfere with or stay the
proceedings before the Tribunal on preliminary issues such as maintainability,
since parties have adequate remedy to challenge the final award and such
interference will only delay the speedy disposal of the disputes.
In the light of the categorical declaration of law as stated above, it is
without any doubt that the petitioner is entitled to approach the Labour Court
without exhausting his appellate remedy available under Rule 198(4) of the
Rules and the Labour Court has rightly held as per Ext.P11 order that the
nd
termination of the 2 respondent comes within the purview of the Industrial
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 11
2026:KER:81613
Disputes Act and the same is maintainable before the Labour Court.
Therefore, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with Ext.P7 order,
and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sp
CNR : KLHC010552512026
WP(C) No.26370 of 2026 12
2026:KER:81613
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 26370 OF 2026
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
15.06.2022 IN WPC NO.17960/2021
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
16.09.2022 IN W.A.NO.1349/2022
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM WITHOUT
ANNEXURES OF ARBITRATION CASE AS ARC
NO.40/2023 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT,
KOZHIKODE
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDER DATED
07.12.2023
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM STATEMENT FILED
AS ID NO.46/2025 FILED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TYPED COPY
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY IN ID NO.46/2025
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN ID NO.46/2025
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA NO.54/2026 IN ID
NO.46/2025 FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT IN
IA. 54 OF 2026 IN ID.46 OF 2025 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER SOCIETY DATED 14.05.2026
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE IA 55/2026 IN ID 46 OF
2025FILED BY THE PETITIONER SOCIETY
Exhibit P9(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO THE IA
NO.55/2026 IN ID 46/2025
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2026
IN I.A.NO.54/2026 IN I.D.NO. 46/2025
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
12.06.2026 IN IA.NO.55/2026 IN ID
NO.46/2025