JUDGMENT : [WP(C) Nos.29882/2024, 5944/2024] 1. Heard Mr A L Navaneeth Krishnan learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5944/2024; Mr Arun Chandran learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29882/2024 who appeared for the respondent also in the respective petitions; and Mr Bimal K Nath learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the State. Facts 2. The employee, who is the fourth respondent in W.P.(C) No.5944/2024 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.29882/2024, was working as an Accountant in the Kappumthala Service Co-operative Bank. Against the Resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society dated 19.01.2017, whereby the employee’s request for voluntary retirement was accepted and his services stood terminated with effect from 24.01.2017, filed a writ petition before this Court impugning the said decision/Resolution of the Society. 2.1 The learned Single Bench of this Court dismissed W.P.(C) No.12463/2017 vide judgment dated 19.03.2021, with liberty to the petitioner/employee to avail of the statutory alternative remedy under Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969. 2.2 The said judgment came to be challenged by the petitioner/employee in W.A. No.614/2021. The Division Bench of this Court held that the writ petition was filed not only against the order dated 24.01.2017 issued by the Kappumthala Service Co-operative Bank, retiring the petitioner from service, but also against the proceedings in the domain of disciplinary nature. As the petitioner was not challenging the disciplinary proceedings, the whole challenge was only in respect of the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 whereby the Managing Committee decided to accept the alleged voluntary retirement application of the petitioner and retire him from service. The Division Bench was of the view that the proceeding dated 24.01.2017 was only a reflection of the decision taken by the Managing Committee of the Co-operative Society in respect of the Resolution passed in the meeting held on 19.07.2017. The Division Bench, therefore, was of the view that the dispute was not in respect of the service which would come within the ambit of Section 69(2)(d) of the Co-operative Societies Act. 2.3 The Division Bench also held that the letter addressed by the petitioner/employee was under a fit of emotion inasmuch as he was not being permitted to sign the acquittance register of the Society. 2.3 The Division Bench also held that the letter addressed by the petitioner/employee was under a fit of emotion inasmuch as he was not being permitted to sign the acquittance register of the Society. Further, the Division Bench also held that it would not be proper to enter into the correctness of the factual case of the petitioner/employee as to whether he had been deliberately denied permission to sign the acquittance register or not. However, the pleading and materials pointed out by both sides would indicate that there was a serious difference of opinion between the petitioner/employee and the authorities of the Society. It was also said that no formal application for voluntary retirement as required under the Rules was submitted by the petitioner/employee and due to emotional turmoil and other issues, the petitioner/employee would have taken the stand that he should be permitted to sign the acquittance register, failing which he should be granted terminal benefits. 2.4 The Division Bench noted that it was not the case of the employer/Society that despite the permission granted to sign the acquittance register, the petitioner/employee, without any valid reason, did not sign the acquittance register. In view of the aforesaid, the Division Bench, prima facie, held the manner in which the decision dated 19.01.2017 was taken to accept the voluntary retirement request of the petitioner and terminate his service did not appear to be a proper and reasonable exercise of power by the employer/Society. 2.5 The Division Bench, therefore, suggested to both sides that the petitioner/employee should be permitted to file a formal application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules before the Joint Registrar seeking to rescind the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 taken by the Managing Committee of the respondent/Co-operative Society and the Joint Registrar should take appropriate decision on the said application filed under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules. 2.6 The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Society, on instructions, had agreed to the said course of action as suggested by the Division Bench. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as follows: “10. 2.6 The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Society, on instructions, had agreed to the said course of action as suggested by the Division Bench. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment reads as follows: “10. Accordingly, we suggested to both sides that the appellant could be permitted to file a formal application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules before the 1st respondent Joint Register, seeking to rescind the resolution dated 19.1.2017 taken by the managing committee of the respondent Co-operative Bank as referred to in Ext.P11 and that the Joint Registrar may take an appropriate decision on the said application filed under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, after hearing the employer and the employee. On more than one occasion, we had impressed upon Sri.P.N.Mohanan, learned Advocate appearing in this case, that a fair and reasonable stand would be taken by the respondent Co-operative Societies in this case. Sri.P.N.Mohanan, on the basis of instructions, has fairly agreed that the said course of action suggested by this Court that the petitioner could be directed to ventilate his grievance by filing an appropriate application under P Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules.” Besides that, the Division Bench was also of the opinion that even otherwise the Resolution passed by the employer/Society would ordinarily be the subject matter of challenge before the statutory authority like Registrar/ notified Registrar in terms of Rule 176, subject to the satisfaction of the parameters in that regard. 3. In view of the aforesaid stand taken on behalf of the respondent Society and the findings recorded by the Division Bench, the petitioner/employee preferred an application under Rule 176 of the Co- operative Societies Rules before the Joint Registrar with a plea to rescind the Resolution. The Joint Registrar vide impugned order [Ext.P16] allowed the application after hearing the parties and set aside the Resolution dated 19.01.2017. The said decision of the Joint Registrar was challenged before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal by the Society. The Tribunal vide impugned order [Ext.P18] dated 25.09.2023 passed in Appeal No.25/2022 dismissed the appeal and directed the employer/Society to do the needful within three weeks. Now, the Society has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Joint Registrar as well as the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, as stated above. 4. The Tribunal vide impugned order [Ext.P18] dated 25.09.2023 passed in Appeal No.25/2022 dismissed the appeal and directed the employer/Society to do the needful within three weeks. Now, the Society has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the Joint Registrar as well as the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, as stated above. 4. The petitioner/employee filed W.P.(C) No.29882/2024 seeking the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing respondents 2 and 3 to reinstate the petitioner in service of the respondent society as Accountant, the post in which the petitioner was working at the time of his termination of service by the society; II. Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the respondent society as Accountant, the post in which he was working prior to the termination of the petitioner; III. Declare that respondents 2 and 3 cannot reinstate the petitioner to any lower post in the service of the society other than the post of Accountant the post in which he was working prior to the termination of the petitioner, as the petitioner had never been reverted to any lower post in his service in the society; IV. Issue a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to give effect to Exhibit P17 order of respondent Joint Registrar which was upheld by way of Exhibit P18 judgment by the Kerala Cooperative Tribunal and which was directed to be given effect to by this Honourable Court by way of Exhibit P19; V. Issue such other orders, directions permitting the petitioner with the dispensation of filing of English translation of vernacular documents which are produced as exhibits in the instant Writ Petition [Civil]; VI. Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” Inasmuch as the order passed by the Joint Registrar and the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal has not been given effect to date and the petitioner/employee has demited office on 31.12.2024. Co- operative Society’s submissions 5. The learned Counsel for the employer/Society submits that the learned Counsel who agreed to the course of action suggested by the Division Bench did not have instructions to give such a concession. Therefore, the employer/Society filed Review Petition R.P. No.8/2024 seeking to review of the judgment dated 27.08.2021 in W.A. No.614/2021. Co- operative Society’s submissions 5. The learned Counsel for the employer/Society submits that the learned Counsel who agreed to the course of action suggested by the Division Bench did not have instructions to give such a concession. Therefore, the employer/Society filed Review Petition R.P. No.8/2024 seeking to review of the judgment dated 27.08.2021 in W.A. No.614/2021. However, the Review Petition came to be dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2024. 5.1 The learned Counsel for the employer/Society further submits that even this Court cannot confer the jurisdiction on the Joint Registrar in view of the provisions of sub-section (2)(d) of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore, the order passed by the Joint Registrar is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. 5.2 The learned Counsel for the employer/Society also relies on the judgments in Kanjoor Service Co-operative Bank Limited No. 454, Ernakulam v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) , [2016 KHC 595] and P.S. Ravendran v. State of Kerala , [ 2007 (3) KHC 780 ] to support his submissions. Employee’s submissions 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the employee submitted that the Division Bench’s decision has attained finality. Independently, the Division Bench also held that the Joint Registrar would be empowered under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to adjudicate the dispute regarding the validity of the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 of the Managing Committee. The Division Bench judgment has not been challenged by the petitioner/Society and has hence attained finality. The Society had also agreed to permit the employee to file an application under Rule 176 to the Joint Registrar. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Society now to take a stand contrary to the stand taken before the Division Bench. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court and it should be dismissed without costs. State’s submissions 7. Mr Bimal K Nath learned Senior Government Pleader has submitted that the power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules conferred on the Joint Registrar is a very wide power and it is not trammelled by the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. State’s submissions 7. Mr Bimal K Nath learned Senior Government Pleader has submitted that the power under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules conferred on the Joint Registrar is a very wide power and it is not trammelled by the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar is empowered to look into any decision of the Managing Committee to find out whether such a decision/Resolution has been taken in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules or otherwise. The Joint Registrar, on application, finds that the Resolution of the Managing Committee or the decision of the Managing Committee is against the provisions of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder, it would be well within his power to rescind such a Resolution or decision of the Managing Committee. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order passed by the Joint Registrar is independently within the powers, besides the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No.614/2021. Discussion and Analysis 8. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records. 9. The question that requires consideration before this Court is whether the Co-operative Society can take a U-turn and contend that the Joint Registrar does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding the validity of the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Managing Committee, to accept the request for voluntary retirement of the petitioner/employee and terminate his services. 10. The employer/Society specifically agreed before the Division Bench to allow the employee to file an application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules to rescind the Resolution of the Managing Committee dated 19.01.2017. The Society was heard, and after considering the merit of the matter, the Joint Registrar concluded that the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 was an illegal exercise of the power by the Managing Committee and the same was set aside. The said decision has been upheld by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal as well. The Society was heard, and after considering the merit of the matter, the Joint Registrar concluded that the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 was an illegal exercise of the power by the Managing Committee and the same was set aside. The said decision has been upheld by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal as well. 10.1 Once the Society agreed before the Division Bench that it agrees to the course of action suggested by the Division Bench to allow the employee to file an application under Rule 176 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules challenging the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 passed by the Managing Committee, it cannot take a U-turn in the present writ petition to contend that the Joint Registrar does not have the jurisdiction to decide the dispute regarding the validity of the Resolution dated 19.01.2017. 10.2 Even otherwise, the Division Bench independently has held that the question of the validity of the Resolution dated 19.01.2017 is not a service dispute which would fall within the ambit and scope of Section 69(2)(d) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The decision of the Division Bench has remained unchallenged, and it has attained finality. This Court is not sitting in appeal or review of the said judgment. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to comment upon the decision of the Division Bench. Once the Division Bench has directed the parties, on consent, to avail the remedy of Rule 176 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Rules, neither the employee nor the Society can take a contrary stand before this Court. Result 11. In view thereof, this Court does not find any substance in this writ petition filed by the Co-operative Society. Hence, W.P.(C) No.5944/2024, filed by the Kappumthala Service Co-operative Bank, stands dismissed. 11.1 However, the writ petition filed by the employee succeeds. W.P.(C) No.29882/2024 filed by the employee is allowed. The Society is directed to pay all eligible benefits, including retiral benefits, to the petitioner within one month from today along with eligible interest, if any. 12. All Interlocutory Applications regarding interim matters stand closed.