Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 862 (KER)

N. K. Bijoy v. Maneesh U. C.

2017-06-09

SHAJI P.CHALY

body2017
JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts.P5 and P6 orders passed by the 3rd and 4th respondents respectively, under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner and 1st respondent were appointed as Peon and Night Watchman respectively in the 2nd respondent Co-operative Bank on 02.01.2006. Thereafter, petitioner and 1st respondent were promoted to the post of Attender with effect from 01.01.2009. As per Ext.P1 Feeder Category Rules, and Ext.P2 seniority list, according to the petitioner, petitioner is senior to the 1st respondent. Petitioner was promoted as Junior Clerk as per the resolution of the Board of Directors meeting on 28.09.2010. The same was challenged by the 1st respondent before the 3rd respondent and as per Ext.P5 award, the above decision of the Board of Directors was set aside and directed to promote the 1st respondent with full back-wages and other benefits. 3. Being aggrieved, petitioner has preferred an appeal before the 4th respondent Tribunal, however, the Tribunal, after analyzing the entire fact situations and reckoning the law, has dismissed the appeal submitted by the petitioner, and upheld the order passed by the 3rd respondent. It is thus challenging the aforesaid orders, this writ petition is filed. 4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 1st respondent refuting the claims and demands raised by the petitioner, and supporting the orders passed by respondents 3 and 4. Reply affidavit is filed by the petitioner, reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. Perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the respective parties. 6. I have gone through Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has passed Ext.P5 order after analyzing the evidence adduced by the respective parties, and the rules involved in the subject matter with respect to the seniority of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Apparently,. both petitioner and the 1st respondent were appointed on the same day. I have gone through Ext.P5 order passed by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent has passed Ext.P5 order after analyzing the evidence adduced by the respective parties, and the rules involved in the subject matter with respect to the seniority of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. Apparently,. both petitioner and the 1st respondent were appointed on the same day. The arbitrator has found that as per the Feeder Category Rules, the employees in the above category are eligible for promotion as Attender, and it has come in evidence that the 1st respondent is senior in the 2nd respondent Bank in the post of Night Watchman. It is also found that the 1st respondent was senior in age than the petitioner. It is further found that the 1st respondent has got more seniority in service than the petitioner in the 2nd respondent Bank, since he has worked in the Bank in the temporary post of Night Watchman for a period of more than five years. Therefore, it can be seen that the fact situations and the other legal aspects were considered by the statutory authority, and arrived at a clear cut finding that the 1st respondent is entitled to get seniority and the resolution passed by the Bank dated 28.09.2010 was bad, and it was thereupon that consequential direction was issued to promote the 1st respondent to the post of Junior Clerk in the service of the Bank. 7. The said factual situations arrived at by the arbitrator were re-appreciated by the Tribunal in its entirety, and has arrived at a finding that the arbitrator has arrived at the correct finding after appreciating the facts and law, and therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. On an evaluation of the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner has not produced any material before this Court to canvass the proposition that the arbitrator as well as the Tribunal have committed any illegality or arbitrariness in appreciating the factual circumstances and reckoning the law involved in the subject issue. It is trite and well-settled that unless and until an aggrieved person is able to establish any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness on the part of the arbitrator as well as the Tribunal, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified. It is trite and well-settled that unless and until an aggrieved person is able to establish any illegality, perversity or arbitrariness on the part of the arbitrator as well as the Tribunal, the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified. Petitioner could not make out any case warranting interference of this Court and therefore, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.