2017 PLP 1131 (SCMR)

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

Through this common judgment, we intend to decide the captioned Civil Appeals which have arisen out of a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court, whereby the Writ petitions filed by the Appellants were dismissed.

2. The facts material for the disposal of the present proceedings are that on 1.8.1979, the Respondent No.3 was allotted Residential Plot No.198, measuring 2 kanals in Block 'U' on 16.11.1983 she was allotted Residential Plot No.386, measuring 2 kanals in Block 'Y' and she was also allotted/purchased on 8.3.1995 a Commercial Plot No.60 measuring 8 marlas in Block 'Z', being a Member of L.C.C.H.S. On 5.4.1995 all the above-mentioned plots were cancelled by the Managing Committee of the Appellants. The Respondent No.3 challenged the cancellation order by filing Petitions before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Lahore, under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Registrar referred the matter to the Circle Registrar for disposal in accordance with law, who issued notices to the parties under Rule 32 of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The said Petitions were contested by the Predecessor of the present Appellants. Both the parties however agreed to refer the matter for arbitration and nominated their respective Arbitrators. The nominated Arbitrators of the parties submitted their joint opinion to the Circle Registrar on 18.1.1996 and 6.2.1996 respectively whereafter the Committee of the Arbitrators announced their Award on 23.1.1996 and 12.12.1996, setting aside the orders of cancellation of the plots. The Appellants challenged the Awards under Section 64 of the Act by filing Appeals before the Secretary, Co-operative Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, which were dismissed being bailed by time. Feeling aggrieved, the Appellants filed three Writ Petitions before the learned Lahore High Court, challenging the orders of the Secretary, Co-operative, which too met with the same fate, vide impugned judgment. Hence these Appeals.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the orders of the Secretary, Co-operatives, Provincial Government under section 64 of the Act were erroneous, as he could have treated the Appeals of the Appellants as Revisions in terms of section 64-A of the Act instead of dismissing them on the ground of limitation. He next contended that the learned High Court fell in error in overlooking the import of section 64-A and ought to have remanded the matter for decision on merits by directing the Provincial Government to treat the Appeals of the Appellants as Revisions in terms of section 64-A of the Act. He next contended that the Awards were not given within the stipulated period of two months, as ordained under Rule 32 of the Rules, therefore, the Awards were nullity in the eyes of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the case of Messrs Firdous Trading Corporation v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad Division (1972 SCMR 91). He contended that the Secretary, Provincial Government had failed to apply the law and the impugned judgment is not sustainable.

4. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has contended that the Awards passed by the Panel of the Arbitrators is neither appealable under section 64 of the Act nor could be challenged in Revisional jurisdiction under section 64-A of the Act. According to him, the Panel of Arbitrators is neither subordinate to the Secretary Co-operative nor to the Registrar, therefore, the only remedy available to the Appellants was to make an Application in terms of section 54-A of the Act and in case if the grievance of the Appellant was not redressed then the Appellant, in law, had the remedy to approach the Provincial Government in terms of section 64 of the Act, by preferring an Appeal as mandated by the language of the Section. The learned Counsel submitted that the Appellant has failed to approach the Registrar in terms of section 54-A of the Act with an Application, therefore, they were debarred to file Appeal in terms of Section 64-A. He submitted that the powers granted under section 64-A to the Provincial Government would not extend to a unanimous Award given by the Panel of Arbitrators, which is not subordinate either to the Provincial Government or to the Registrar.

5. It is next contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that Rule 32 of the Rules have stipulated a period of two months for giving the Award from the date of entering the Reference and this Rule would not come in the way of Arbitrators as the nominee of the Registrar was Chairman of the Panel of the Arbitrators and the time to conclude Arbitration proceedings beyond two months could be .granted under Rule 32.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the first place, we are of the considered view that a unanimous Award given by the Panel of Arbitrators is neither appealable in terms of section 64 of the Act nor a Revision under section 64-A of the Act would lie against such Award. On scanning section 54-A of the Act, we have noticed that a party aggrieved by an Award of 3 Arbitrators can challenge the Award by making an application to the Registrar, who may on application of a party set aside the Award and refer the depute back to the Arbitration. Admittedly, the Appellants have not challenged the Awards before the Registrar with the application instead have invoked the provisions of section 64 by preferring Appeals, which were dismissed being barred by time. His contention that the Appeals could have been treated as 'Revisions' under section 64-A of the Act is also without force. Section 64-A of the Act has limited scope. The power under this Section is vested in the Secretary to the Provincial Government and the Registrar to call for and scrutinize the record of an enquiry or proceeding pending before any Officer subordinate to them. Power under this Section could not be extended to cover the proceeding, which relate to Arbitration and or Award given by the Arbitrators Committee constituted in terms of section 54 of the Act, as the Arbitrators are not subordinate either to the Secretary Co-operatives or to the Registrar.

7. In regard to the question that Awards were given by the Panel of Arbitrators beyond the period of two months from the date of entering the Reference, in the first place, no supportive material has been placed on record by the Appellants to substantiate this contention, besides Rule 32 of the Rules authorizes the Registrar to extend the time of two months, which powers apparently had been exercised while giving the unanimous Awards. It is an admitted position that Panel of Arbitrations included the nominee of the Appellants besides the Arbitration Committee was presided over by the nominee of the Registrar. Therefore, in such an eventuality, it cannot be presumed that the Registrar has not extended the time for Awards. The judgment in the case of Messrs Firdous Trading Corporation v. Registrar Co-operative Societies, Hyderabad Division (19727 SCMR 91), is distinguishable on facts.

8. We have also noticed that the Appellant has not challenged the Awards before the High Court but has only challenged the order of the Secretary, Co-operative of the Provincial Government which he has passed in terms of section 64 of the Act, holding that the Appeals are time barred. Since the Awards were never challenged before the High Court on merits, therefore, we cannot examine the findings contained in the Awards on merits.

9. We, for the aforesaid reasons, do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned High Court, which could warrant interference by this Court. Therefore, these Appeals are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. MWA/D-1/SC Appeals dismissed.