Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P4 judgment of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal. Petitioner was a salesman in the service of the second respondent-society from 1962 to 1982. He filed A.R.C. No. 876 of 1986 before the third respondent claiming arrears of salary of Rs. 18,953.48 with 12% interest per annum for the period from 1.1.1974 to 31.8.1982. Application was preferred under S.69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The matter was seriously contested by parties. Ultimately, the arbitrator passed the following award: "The defendant has to pay a sum of Rs. 18,95 3.48 (Rupees Eighteen thousand nine hundred fifty three and paise forty eight) only to the petitioner within a period of 6 months from the date of order. No costs or further interest is awarded to the petitioner." 2. Aggrieved by the award, the second respondent society preferred an appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal. Co-operative Tribunal however, allowed the appeal and set aside the award stating as follows: "On perusal of records, I find that court fee of Re. 1/- alone is affixed on the plaint. Requisite court fee to be affixed on the plaint is Rs. 2/-. Therefore, the plaint is not properly stamped.... In view of this finding, appeal is to be allowed and award set aside. I do so." 3. The judgment of the Tribunal was seriously challenged by counsel for the petitioner. Counsel contended that if the petition filed before the Arbitrator under S.69(1) was in any way defective, the same ought to have been rejected at the threshold and therefore, he should have filed another application, if there was deficiency in court fee. Further counsel contended that no contention was raised by the society before the arbitrator with regard to deficiency in court fee and arbitrator has no case that court fee paid was deficient and therefore, petition should not be entertained. Counsel further contended that even going by R.67(7) of the Rules, petitioner need remit only Rs. 50/- which he has already paid. Counsel further contended that there is no necessity of paying Rs. 2/- towards court fee. 4. Counsel for the second respondent however maintained the stand that petitioner ought to have paid Rs. 2/- by way of court fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 so as to entertain the petition. 50/- which he has already paid. Counsel further contended that there is no necessity of paying Rs. 2/- towards court fee. 4. Counsel for the second respondent however maintained the stand that petitioner ought to have paid Rs. 2/- by way of court fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 so as to entertain the petition. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Gopalaknshna Panicker v. Slate of Kerala, 1990 (2) KLT495, and Nandakumar v. Arbitrator, 1996 (2) KLT 324 and contended that payment of court fee is mandatory requirement and if the same is not paid in time, petition cannot be entertained and has to be dismissed. 5. I am of the view the decisions referred to above have no relevance as far as the nature of the dispute is concerned. The above mentioned two decisions were dealing with Election disputes. The dispute in this case is with regard to monetary claims and therefore, both cannot be weighed in the same balance. Formalities relating to election petition are to be complied with strictly, and any deviation therefrom will prove fatal to the very maintainability of the petition itself, because public interest requires expeditious culmination of election process. The delay if any in the disposal of an election petition should be minimal, once it is tiled. However, in the cases of disputes other than election disputes, such as monetary claims by employees I am afraid the same yardstick cannot be adopted. In this connection reference may be made to R.67(7)(a)(I) of the Rules which is extracted below: "67(7)(a). The fees for deciding the disputes shall be as follows: I. Monetary disputes - Forty paise for claims of every 10 or part thereof, subject to a minimum of Rs. 10 and a maximum of Rs. 500/ II. Non-monetary disputes (i) For cases filed by the employees of the society Rs. 50/ (ii) In other cases Rs. 500/ Note:-The fees shall be paid in advance into the nearest Government Treasury. All petitions and applications presented under this rule shall bear court fee stamps as required under the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of I960)." 6. 50/ (ii) In other cases Rs. 500/ Note:-The fees shall be paid in advance into the nearest Government Treasury. All petitions and applications presented under this rule shall bear court fee stamps as required under the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959 (10 of I960)." 6. Division Bench in Nandakumar's case, (supra) held that even in the case of election petitions, documents need not be produced along with the election petition, and the same can be produced later.1 am hasten to add that in the matter of monetary claims, provision requires liberal interpretation. In this case an award was passed by the arbitrator in favour of the employee for Rs. 18,95 3.48, and the said award has now been reversed for non-payment of court fee of Re. 1/- with opportunity to the parties to file again a fresh arbitration case. 7. I am of the view that this is not the purport and scheme of settlement of disputes other than election disputes. For non-payment of Re. 1/- towards court fee, a person cannot be denied the benefit of monetary claim for Rs. 18,953.48 with interest. If there is any deficit in court fee, the arbitrator or the Tribunal could have given time to the party to rectify the same. In fact there was no contention by either party before the arbitrator that there was deficiency in court fee of Re. 1/-. Tribunal only found it as a ground convenient to allow the appeal and dismiss the arbitration case for deficiency of Re. 1/ - without giving any time for curing the said defect. In this connection, itis also relevant to refer to R.107 of the Co-operative Societies Rules which reads as follows: "107. Failure to pay fees:- Where the whole or any part of any fee provided for any document by any law for the time being in force has not been paid the Tribunal may in its discretion at any stage, allow the person by whom such fee is payable to pay the whole or part, as the case may be of such fee and upon such payment the document in respect of which the fee is payable shall have the same force and effect, as if such fee had been paid in the first instance" 8. Even though the same said provision as such is not applicable to the petition before the Arbitrator, I am of the view the said provision could be applied to cases of this nature to advance substantial justice especially in a case where no such issue has been raised before the Arbitrator. The contention of the petitioner that he need not pay Rs. 2/- towards court fee under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act cannot be accepted in view of the decision of this Court in Gopalakrishna Panicker's case, 1990. (2) KLT 495, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in tiandakumar's case, 1996 (2) KLT 324. 9. In the said circumstances, I set aside Ext. P4 and direct the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal on merits. Tribunal will give petitioner sufficient time to cure the defect, such as payment of court fee. The Tribunal will pass final orders within a period of three months. Original Petition is allowed as above.