JUDGMENT : D.K. SINGH, J. 1. The 1 st respondent was the Branch Manager of the petitioner Co-operative Bank. He was subjected to the disciplinary proceedings for serious misconduct committed by him while working as the Branch Manager of the petitioner Bank. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against the respondent and the Disciplinary Sub Committee after considering the response of the 1 st respondent to the Show Cause Notice issued to him for imposing major penalty, inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service vide the order dated 16.02.2009. 2. The 1 st respondent, being aggrieved by the said punishment order of dismissal from service inflicted by the Disciplinary Sub Committee, filed an appeal before the Managing Committee of the Society. However, the Managing Committee of the Society affirmed the decision of the Disciplinary Sub Committee vide its order dated 18.06.2009. 3. The 1 st respondent thereafter filed Arbitration Case; ARC No. 97 of 2011 before the Co-operative Arbitration Court impugning the decisions of the Disciplinary Sub Committee, the Managing Committee as well as the Enquiry Report. The Arbitration Court vide the order dated 24.05.2013 dismissed the Arbitration Case filed by the 1 st respondent. The 1 st respondent challenged the said decision of the Arbitration Court in appeal before the Co-operative Arbitration Tribunal. The Co-operative Arbitration Tribunal vide the order dated 13.01.2015 was of the opinion that the proceedings before the Managing Committee were vitiated inasmuch as the members of the Disciplinary Sub Committee were present in the meeting and, therefore, the Co-operative Tribunal remanded the matter to the Managing Committee to reconsider the issue afresh without the presence of the members of the Disciplinary Sub Committee. 4. On remand, the Managing Committee again considered the appeal filed by the 1 st respondent and vide the order dated 19.02.2015 rejected the appeal and affirmed decision of the Disciplinary Sub Committee. 5. The 1 st respondent thereafter had challenged the said decision of the managing committee dated 19.02.2015 by filing Arbitration Case; ARC No. 20 of 2015 before the Arbitration Court. 5. The 1 st respondent thereafter had challenged the said decision of the managing committee dated 19.02.2015 by filing Arbitration Case; ARC No. 20 of 2015 before the Arbitration Court. The following prayers were made in the arbitration petition; a) to pass an award in favour of the plaintiff setting aside the suspension order dated 21.08.2008, set aside the order of dismissal dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Sub Committee and order dated 19.02.2015 of the Board of Management and reinstate the plaintiff in service with full back wages and continuity of service with all service benefits. b) to declare that the entire disciplinary proceedings including the order of suspension and the findings of Domestic Enquiry Officer are perverse and based on no evidence and consequential proceedings by the bank accepting the domestic enquiry report are illegal. c) to grant such other reliefs that are deemed fit and proper, in the interest of justice and d) to pay the cost of the plaintiff. 6. The petitioner Society filed preliminary objection in the Arbitration Case stating that the 1 st respondent Could have only challenged the decision of the Managing Committee dated 19.02.2015 and the Order passed by the Disciplinary Sub Committee was not open for challenge neither the report of the Enquiry Officer inasmuch as in the earlier round of proceedings before the Arbitration Court, the Arbitration Court has considered the challenge to the decision of the Disciplinary Sub Committee and the report of the Enquiry Officer and did not find merit in the said challenge. Therefore, the 1 st respondent should not have filed the petition challenging the decision of the Disciplinary Sub Committee as well as the Enquiry Report and it was said that, to that extent the Arbitration proceedings will not be maintainable. 7. The Arbitration Court vide the order dated 13.03.2019 dismissed the preliminary objection on the ground that the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal has set aside the order of the Arbitration Court and remanded the case to the Bank with direction to consider all contentions of the 1 st respondent herein without the participation or presence of any of the members of the Disciplinary Sub Committee in the meeting of the Managing Committee. Therefore, the Board of Management of the petitioner Bank herein had considered the appeal and contentions raised by the 1 st respondent herein and passed a fresh order. Therefore, the Board of Management of the petitioner Bank herein had considered the appeal and contentions raised by the 1 st respondent herein and passed a fresh order. Since the fresh order passed by the Managing Committee was a fresh cause of action and an earlier order of the Arbitration Court was set aside, there was no force in the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner Society. 8. The said decision of the Arbitration Court was challenged by the petitioner Society before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal vide the order dated 24.04.2023 passed in Revision Petition No. 2 of 2020 has dismissed the revision. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Arbitration Court as well as the Kerala Co-operative Society are untenable. She further submits that once the issue regarding the decision of the Disciplinary Sub Committee and the Enquiry Report was finalized by the Arbitration Court, the said issue would not have been reopened by the 1 st respondent by filing a fresh Arbitration Case. The 1 st respondent would have only challenged the decision of the Managing Committee which was taken afresh on remand. 10. The learned Counsel for the 1 st respondent however submits that once the order of the Arbitration Court was set aside, the order of the Arbitration Court got merged with the Order passed by the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal and, therefore, the findings recorded by the Arbitration Court in earlier round of petition/proceedings no longer exist and the Arbitration Court is required to reconsider the entire issue afresh. 11. The doctrine of mergers is applicable in cases where the order of original authority/the Court is upheld or set aside by the Appellate Authority/Court. The earlier order passed by the Arbitration Court dated 24.05.2013 get merged with the order of the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal and, therefore, the only order of the Kerala Co- operative Tribunal would be existing and not the order passed by the Arbitration Court. Once the order of the Arbitration Court was set aside, the findings recorded in the said order would no longer be relevant for considering the issue in the Arbitration Case filed by the 1 st respondent against the fresh decision taken by the Managing Committee. Once the order of the Arbitration Court was set aside, the findings recorded in the said order would no longer be relevant for considering the issue in the Arbitration Case filed by the 1 st respondent against the fresh decision taken by the Managing Committee. In view thereof, I do not find that either the Arbitration Court or the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal have committed any error of law or jurisdiction which requires this Court to interfere with in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed. The Arbitration Court is directed to proceed with the case expeditiously and finalise the same preferably within a period of six months.