Justice Viju Abraham delivered the judgment in an appeal filed by the Chokkad Service Co-operative Bank challenging the order of the Labour Court, Kozhikode.

The dispute arose when the respondent in the present appeal who was employed as a peon at Chokkad Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. since 2008, was suspended over allegations of serious irregularities and insubordination. Following an enquiry, the bank dismissed him from service by an order dated December 7, 2023.

Instead of first filing an appeal under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, the respondent approached the Labour Court, Kozhikode.

The bank challenged the maintainability of the proceedings, contending that the employee had an effective statutory remedy before the society's Executive Committee or Board of Management. The Labour Court rejected the bank's preliminary objection, prompting it to file the present appeal.

The petitioner bank contended that the punishment is imposed 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.

Reliance was placed on Section 28 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 to content that the since the management of the Society is vested to its Committee, the decision on a punishment imposed on the employee can only be by the Executive Committee/ Board of Management in an appeal under Rule 198 (4) of the Rules.

The respondent on the other hand contended that the petitioner cannot challenge the order of the tribunal which considered the question of maintainability, 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.

The court examined whether an order of dismissal issued by the President of a co-operative society could itself be challenged before the Labour Court, or whether the employee was required to first appeal against the punishment to the Executive Committee or Board of Management and obtain an appellate order.

The Court noted that Rule 198(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules identifies the authorities competent to impose penalties on different categories of employees. In the present case, the President of the society was competent to impose the punishment. Rule 198(4), in turn, provides for an appeal against such punishment to the Executive Committee or Board of Management.

The Court held that the Executive Committee or Board of Management acts as an appellate authority, not the original disciplinary authority. Once the competent authority imposed the dismissal, the punishment order could be treated as an order imposing a penalty. Its status did not depend on the employee first pursuing an appeal.

Reliance was placed on the decision in Annamma K.A v Secretary, Cochin Co-operative Hospital Society Ltd. [2018 (1) KHC 258], where it was held that the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Industrial Disputes Act possess the concurrent jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving co-operative societies.

An employee may choose either available forum, subject to satisfying the applicable requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act, including the definitions of “workman”, “industrial dispute” and “industry”.

Reliance was also placed on Veerankavu Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. v. C. Sindhu Kumari [2025 (1) KHC 421] where it was held that an employee approaching the Labour Court under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act need not first exhaust the appellate remedy under Rule 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules.

The bank relied on the Division Bench Managing Director, State Bank of India v. S. Murali, [2026 (5) KHC 64] to contend that a disciplinary order becomes final only after confirmation by the statutory appellate authority.

The High Court distinguished that decision on the ground that it concerned the computation of the limitation period under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The issue there was when the limitation period for challenging a punishment would begin, and the Court held that it commenced when the punishment became enforceable following the appellate authority's order.

The Court thus held that the employee was entitled to approach the Labour Court without exhausting the appellate remedy under Rule 198(4),and found that there was no reason to interfere with the Labour Court's decision.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Counsel for Petitioner: M. Sasindran, V. Venugopal

Counsel for Respondents: Ajith S, Mayuri A. Nair, Muhammed Owais, M. Praveen Kumar (GP)