1. ' MAZHAR ALAM KHAN MIANKHEL, J.---The appellant, being employer, entered into a contract agreement with the collaboration of Project Director, FAP (Foreign Aided Project), Works and Services Department, respondent No,2 in the main petition, with the construction company, the petitioner in the main petition. The work according to the agreement was completed by the company but as per stance of the company, the payments were not made according to agreed terms and conditions of the agreement. The company, for resolution of the dispute, approached the employer for referring the matter to the arbitrators, as per arbitration clause of the agreement.
2. ' The matter was accordingly referred to the agreed arbitrators i,e, respondents Nos.2 and 3, who after going through the record and hearing the parties, announced their award on 20th March, 2007, copy of which was received by the company, respondent No,1 on 6th day of April, 2007.
3. Thereafter, the company submitted an application under section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for making the award as rule of the Court. The employer and the Project Director filed their replies and the Court vide its judgment dated 9-10-2008 made the award as rule of the Court.
4. ' The employer and the Project Director has filed instant appeal.
5. ' The learned A.A.-G. For the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment is not only against the law but also against the material available on the record; the Court even ' failed to consider the filing of award in the Court after the prescribed period of 90 days, as provided in Article-178 of the Limitation Act, 1908. He further submitted that the trial court has committed illegality in simply putting a stamp of its approval on the award without looking into the award itself and the record annexed with the same by requesting for setting aside of the same. He placed reliance on the cases of Messrs Mechanised Constractors of Pakistan Limited v. Airport Development Authority, Karachi (2000 CLC 1239), and Noor Nabuwwat v. Moulvi Muhammad Noor Ali Khan (1999 CLC 1685).
6. ' As against that, the learned counsel for respondent No,1 Company submitted that the award was made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and the trial Court has rightly gave its authentication by making the same rule of the Court. The appellants even had failed to file objections under the law within the stipulated period of 30 days provided under Article 158 of the Limitation Act and requested for dismissal of the appeal.
7. ' Learned counsel for the parties were heard and record of the case was perused.
8. Perusal of the record would reveal that the company, respondent No,1, after receipt of notice from the arbitrator under subsection (1) of section 14 of the Act ibid, filed an application under subsection (2) thereof to get the award filed in the Court and made rule of Court. The respondents Nos.2 and 3, the arbitrators, filed the award in original in the Court in consequence of the notice of the Court. The appellants then were put on notice of filing of award in the Court, who filed their written statement/reply to the application by raising legal and factual grounds regarding maintainability of the application and legal status of the award. Though, separate objections against the award were not filed by the appellants but the Court considering the above reply as objections, declared it to be barred by Article-158 of Limitation Act, being filed beyond the prescribed period of 30 days after receipt of notice of filing of award in the Court. The Court then without commenting upon the validity of the award straight away made the award rule of Court.
9. ' Let it be so that the other party failed to file objections to the award or filed the same beyond the prescribed period but this alone, under the law, would not be sufficient on the part of the Court to put its seal of verification and authentication on the award by just acting mechanically. It is the prime duty of the Court to consider all the questions regarding validity of the award, both on legal as well as on its factual aspects. Under the law, Court can refuse to make the award Rule of the Court; can remit the award back to the arbitrators by pointing out deficiencies in the award.
10. Furthermore, all such exercise should also be based on reasons. It is not just a mechanical process that on the one end of the machine one will insert the award and one the other end would get the authentication of the Court on the award. The short-cut as adopted by the Court is not permissible under the law. Reference can be made to the cases of Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Shahin Shah and others (2009 MLD 1418) and Pakistan Television Corporation Limited v. Messrs Interconstruct (Pvt.)
11. Limited through Managing Director, Peshawar (PLD 2010 Peshawar 34). In Shahin Shah's case (supra), this aspect of the case was dealt-with in the following words: "The learned trial Court felt free to make award as rule of the Court, the moment it found that the objections there against have not been filed within the period of limitation. It did not bother to cast even a passing glance at the award before proceeding to make it rule of the Court. There is no cavil with the proposition that the Court seized of a proceeding for making award, as rule of the Court is not supposed to sit in judgment over it as a Court of appeal. There is also no cavil with the proposition that the Court is also not required to make reappraisal of evidence recorded by the arbitrator to discover any error or infirmity in the award. But it does not mean that it is to ditto or rubber stamp the award mechanically without much questioning about it. The legislature in its wisdom, as far as, it can be gathered from the scheme of the Act, did not envision the intervention of the Court just for the hack of it. It was rather purposive, meaningful and goal oriented. It being supervisory is meant to check the excesses and over doings in the conduct of the arbitrator in the arbitration proceeding. The role of Court, if seen in the light of the relevant provisions of the Act and the case-law that has grown over years in this behalf is that of active dissenter rather than passive consenter. But strange is the fact that the learned trial Court considered itself just a plant mean for manufacturing the goods known as rule of the Court on receipt of some raw material in the form of award."
12. If the impugned judgment of the lower Court is seen in the above perspective, then it becomes clear that the trial Court even did not bother to have a look on the award what to talk of considering its validity. Such a judgment cannot be maintained.
13. ' So, what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that remand of the case thus has become inevitable. Hence, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 9-10- 2008 is set aside and the case is sent back to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law as early as possible but not later than one month after the receipt of the original file. The costs shall follow the event. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 21-11-2011.