BY AD vs T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

was disposed of with the following observation: “5. Taking note of the afore submissions, I direct the 3rd respondent to pay Rs.9,58,874/-, with eligible interest to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; and I leave liberty to the petitioner to pursue his remedies as regards the amount of Rs.2,05,683/-, either by invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or through such other methods as may be legally available to him. This writ petition is thus ordered.”

3. The petitioner was given liberty to pursue his remedies as regards to the amount of Rs.2,05,683/- either WP(C) NO. 23187 OF 2023 3 by invoking the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act or through such other remedy as might be available to him.

4. In pursuance to the liberty granted to the petitioner, the petitioner has approached the Co- operative Arbitration Court in A.R.C. No.3/2020 seeking refund of Rs.2,05,683/-. The petitioner has also approached this Court in another writ petition, W.P.(C.) No.27424/2019, and the said writ petition came to be disposed of vide judgment dated 10.03.2020.

5. The said writ petition for the same prayer as made in W.P.(C.) No.3567/2018 was disposed of in the following terms: “Petitioner, a retired employee of the Kottayam District Co-operative Bank, had earlier approached this Court with the grievance that his earned leave and gratuity amount of Rs.9,58,874/- was not paid. It was also alleged that the petitioner had been forced to pay an amount of Rs.2,05,683/-. The prayer in the earlier writ petition was for the first mentioned amount to be disbursed and the second mentioned amount to be refunded to the petitioner at the earliest. This Court by its judgment dated 03.04.2019 in W.P.(C). No.3567/2018, directed the 3rd respondent bank to pay the amount of Rs.9,58,874/- with eligible interest within a period of one WP(C) NO. 23187 OF 2023 4 month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner was granted liberty to pursue his remedies as regards the amount of Rs.2,05,683/-, either by invoking provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act or through such other method as may legally be available to him.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pending this writ petition, petitioner has filed Arbitration Case No.3/2020 before the Joint Registrar, Kottayam, seeking refund of the amount of Rs.2,05,683/-. It is submitted that, in the Arbitration Case, petitioner has also raised the contention that though the amount of Rs.9,58,874/- was disbursed, he was not paid the eligible interest as directed by this Court in Ext.P3 judgment and that interest was paid only at the rate of 4%. The petitioner having availed remedy under Section 69 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act in accordance with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment, it is only appropriate that the Joint Registrar, Kottayam, the 3rd respondent herein, before whom the Arbitration case is pending, considers the matter and takes a decision expeditiously, especially in view of the fact that the petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2017.

3. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to take up ARC No.3/2020 pending before the said authority and to take a decision thereon, with notice to the District Co-operative bank, Kottayam, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.”

6. Sri.P.C Sasidharan, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that ARC No. 3/2020 filed by the petitioner was disposed of vide Ext.P8 order. The WP(C) NO. 23187 OF 2023 5 Order passed by the Arbitrator has already been complied with. Now, the petitioner cannot seek the same relief from this Court in the present writ petition for refund of Rs.2,05,683/-. Once the Arbitrator decided the issue in pursuance to the liberty granted by this Court. The writ petition for the same cause of action is barred by the principle of res-judicata. Therefore, I do not find that the present writ petition is maintainable, which is hereby dismissed. AP Sd/- D. K. SINGH JUDGE WP(C) NO. 23187 OF 2023 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23187/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.27424/2019 DATED 10/3/2020 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE BANK DATED 24/9/2020 Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/4/2021 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 6/7/2021 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PERIOD 1/1/2000 TO 1/3/2017 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT PERIOD 1/1/2000 TO 30/4/2018 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 5/5/2023 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R4(a) True copy of the letter dated 22.07.2011