1987 PLP 1661 (CLC)

(2) Where a representative nominated by a party is, by reason of illness or otherwise, unable to attend the meetings of the Arbitration Council, or wilfully absents himself from such meetings, or has lost the confidence of the party, the party may, with the previous permission in writing of the Chairman, revoke the nomination and make, within such time as the Chairman may allow, a fresh nomination. (3) where a fresh nomination is made under sub‑rule (2), it shall not be necessary to commence the proceedings before the Arbitration Council de novo, unless the Chairman, for reasons to be recorded in writing, directs otherwise." (16) (1) Application for the revision of a decision of an Arbitration Council, under subsection (4) of section 6, or of a certificate under subsection (2) of section 9, shall be preferred within thirty days of the decision or of the issue of the certificate, as the case may be, and shall be accompanied by a fee of two rupees. (2)The application shall be in writing, set out the grounds on which the applicant seeks to have the decision or the certificate revised, and shall bear the signature of the applicant."

6. Whereas composition of the "conciliation Court" has been defined in section 2(b) of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 and has been created by virtue of section 4 thereof and sections 5, 6 provides its working machinery; and the text of these sections is set out herein below: "S.2(b) 'Conciliation Court' means, a Conciliation Court constituted under the Ordinance." S.4(1) Where a case is, under this Ordinance, referable to conciliation, any party to the dispute may, in the prescribed manner, and on payment of the prescribed fee, apply to the Chairman of the Union Council concerned or, as the case may be, to the member representing the ward or, in the case of ward which has more members than one, to such one of them as may be determined in the prescribed manner for the constitution of a Conciliation court, for the settlement of the dispute and unless the Chairman, or as the case may be, the member for reasons to be recorded in writing, rejects the application, he shall proceed to constitute, in the prescribed manner, a Conciliation court for the purpose: Provided that no application under this section shall be made against a person of unsound mind. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of rejection under subsection (1) may, on the ground that the order is mala fide or substantially unjust, prefer, in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time, an application for revision to the Controlling Authority, or to such other authority as may be prescribed. "S.5.‑‑(1) A Conciliation Court shall be a body consisting of a Chairman and two representatives to be nominated, in the prescribed manner, by each of the parties to the dispute: Provided that one of the two representatives so nominated shall be a member of the Union Council concerned. (2) The Chairman of the Union Council or, as the case may be, the member representing the ward, or, in the case of a ward which has more members than one, such one of them as may be determined in the prescribed manner shall be the Chairman of the Conciliation Court but where he is, owing to illness or any other cause, unable to act as Chairman, or does not, on account of any personal consideration, wish to do so, or his impartiality is challenged by any party to the dispute, any other person appointed in the prescribed manner, not being a person nominated by any party, shall be the Chairman of the Court. (3) If either party to the dispute consists of more than one person, the Chairman shall call upon the person constituting that party to nominate the two representatives on its behalf, and if they fail so to nominate, shall authorize any one of such persons to do so, and thereupon the person so authorised shall alone have the right to nominate such representatives. (4) Where representatives required under this section to be nominated are not nominated within the prescribed time then‑‑ (2) if the case falls under Part I of the Schedule, the Conciliation Court shall without such representatives, be deemed to have been validly constituted for the purposes of this Ordinance, and conciliation shall proceed accordingly; and (b) if the case falls under Part II of the Schedule, the Court shall issue a certificate that conciliation has failed." "S.6: Jurisdiction of Conciliation Courts etc.‑‑ (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (a), conciliation Court shall be constituted and shall have jurisdiction to try a case only when the parties to dispute ordinarily reside within the jurisdiction of the same Union Council in which the offence has been committed or the‑cause of action has arisen. (2) Where one of the parties to a dispute ordinarily resides, and the offence has been committed or the cause of action has arisen, in one ward of a city, municipality or cantonment, and the other party ordinarily resides in another ward of the same city, municipality or cantonment, then, a Conciliation Court may be constituted in the Ward in which the offence has been committed or, as the case may be, the cause of action has arisen." "S.8: (1) . (2) If the decision of a Conciliation Court is by majority of three or two, and the case falls under Part I of the Schedule, any party may, within thirty days of the decision of a Conciliation Court, apply in the prescribed manner‑‑ (a) to the Controlling Authority, if the case relates to a matter falling under section A of that Part; or (b) to the District Judge, if the case relates to a matter falling under section B thereof, and the Controlling Authority or the District Judge, as the case may be, if satisfied that there has been a failure of justice, may set aside or modify the decision or direct that the dispute be referred back to the Conciliation Court for reconsideration."

7. A juxtaposition examination of the two sets of statutory provisions clearly demonstrates that each statute is self‑contained self‑comprehensive, self‑sufficient and one is not supplementary to the other. Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 has created a machinery for resolution of family disputes whereas the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 has created a machinery for deciding cases specified in the schedule thereto both for criminal as well as of civil matters. For the sake of convenience of reference, the schedule is being reproduced in extenso hereinafter: "Section A "(1) Sections 143 and 147 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), read with the Third or the Fourth clause of section 141 of that Code, when the common object of the unlawful assembly is to commit an offence under section 323 or 426 or 447 of the Code, and when not more than ten persons are involved in the unlawful assembly. (2) Sections 160, 323, 334, 341, 342, 352, 358, 426, 447, 504, 506 (first part), 508, 509 and 510, Pakistan Penal Code. (3) Sections 403, 406, 417 and 420, Pakistan Penal Code, when the amount in respect of which the offence is committed does not exceed one hundred rupees. (4) Section 427, Pakistan Penal Code, when the value of the property involved does not exceed one hundred rupees. (5) Sections 428 and 429, Pakistan Penal Code when the value of the animal does not exceed one hundred rupees. (6) Sections 24, 26 and 27 of the Cattle‑Trespass Act, 1871 (I of 1871). (7) Attempts to commit or the abetment of the commission of any of the above offences." "Section B: (1) Suit for the recovery of money due on contracts, receipts or other documents. (2) Suit for the recovery of movable property or for the value thereof. (3) Suit for compensation for wrongfully taking or damaging movable property." Section A of Part I of t e schedule provides the extent of jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court vis‑a‑vis criminal matters; whereas Section B, confines itself in exclusionary terms to civil matters. A bare reading of these three items pregnantly manifests that it does not bring within the scope of Conciliation Courts, the jurisdiction conferred on the Arbitration Council, as contemplated by S.9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.

8. There is another aspect of the matter. Arbitration Council is designed to provide maintenance to a wife not only for future but also for the past; and the quantum of maintenance would vary depending upon the social economic status of the parties; therefore, if one is to go by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner; then section 9 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 would become redundant and would loose its efficacy in a controversy pertaining to wife belonging to a wealthier section of the society. This law is not intended to cater for a limited section of the social fabric of the country, but is meant to deal with the whole society.

9. On merits, it transpires from the order of the Arbitration Council that respondent No.3 has not been maintained for a period of three years, which has been upheld by respondent No.2. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of fact, which cannot be looked into in this extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.

10. Independent of the aforegoing reasons, this petition suffers from laches since it has been filed after a period of one year of the date of the impugned order. There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed in limine. M . B . A / M‑24/ L Petition dismissed