This judgment shall dispose of W.Ps. Nos.15285/93, 15287/93, 15288/93, 15289/93, 15290/93, 15291/93 and 15292/93 as common questions of law arise therein.
2. In all these petitions, the petitioners have called in question the orders passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, Lahore on 7-8-1993 whereby he proceeded to dismiss the applications filed by the petitioners under section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 for setting aside the awards of the Arbitrators as being not maintainable.
3. The facts necessary for the disposal of these petitions are that on 6-10-1991, National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation Ltd., a Cooperative Society had filed an application for the recovery of Rs.35,15,572.06 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies against the petitioner. During the pendency of those proceedings, National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation was declared to be an undesirable Society under the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Ordinance, 1992 and the Punjab Cooperative Board for liquidation was appointed as its Liquidator. An Application was filed by the Punjab Cooperative Board for liquidation that the proceedings pending before the Registrar be converted into proceedings under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. This application was allowed and the parties were called upon to nominate their Arbitrators which they did. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies with the power of Registrar was nominated as the third Arbitrator. After hearing the case, on 31-12-1992 the Panel of Arbitrators gave their award and by majority held the petitioner liable to pay the amount in dispute with costs and interest.
4. Aggrieved of the award, the petitioner filed an application under section 54-A read with section 56 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies who, however, vide his order dated 8-2-1993 declined to hear it. The petitioner challenged this refusal by filing W.P.
No.1460 of 1993 which was accepted by this Court on 1-3-1993 and the Registrar was directed to decide the appeal after hearing the parties.
5. Pursuant to that order, the Registrar heard the parties and by hiss order dated 7-8-1993 held that the appeal of the petitioner was not maintainable for three reasons; firstly, that as the Deputy Registrar who was one of the Arbitrators enjoyed the powers of the Registrar, no appeal against his award was competent before the Registrar; secondly, that the award was being executed by the Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993, no appeal could be filed against the award before the Registrar and thirdly, that all proceedings stood abated by virtue of section 16 of the Punjab Act I of 1993.
6. Mr. A.I Sibtain Fazli, Advocate has relied upon the decision of this Court in Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman v.
Registrar, Cooperatives Punjab etc. 1994 M LD 1637 to contend that notwithstanding that the Deputy Registrar (who was one of the Arbitrators) enjoyed the powers of the Registrar, he remained to be a Deputy Registrar, as such, the petitioner could appeal against that award to the Registrar under section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
The next argument of the learned counsel was that as section 16 of Punjab Act I of 1993 had no applicability as reference to arbitration was by andnot against the Society and its Liquidator. It was lastly urged that the fact that the award was being executed by the Cooperative Judge under Punjab Act I of 1993 was of no consequence and the petitioner could not be deprived of his right to appeal against the award.
7. Mr. Irfan Qadir, Learned Additional Advocate-General has defended the impugned order by contending that since the Deputy Registrar had been conferred the powers of Registrar no appeal could be filed before the Registrar against his award as it would amount to hear the appeal against one's own order. The learned Additional Advocate-General has objected to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy available before the Secretary, Cooperatives, Government of Punjab by filing a revision under section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
8. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is to be seen that the main ground which prevailed with the Registrar for holding that the applications against the awards were not competent was that the awards were being executed under section 7 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 by the Hon'ble Cooperative Judge.
9. There is, however nothing expressed or implied in the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution) Act, 1993 from which ouster of jurisdiction of the Registrar to hear an application under section 54- A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 against an award of Arbitrators can be spelt out. No doubt, section 3 gives overriding effect over any other law for the time being in force but that is so only in the event of some repugnancy shown to exist between two Statutes. If, however, Punjab Act I of 1993 is silent in respect of a particular matter, it cannot be said that the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 stand overriden. It is also to be seen that there is no express repeal of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 by Punjab Act I of 1993 nor can it be said that the latter Act has impliedly repealed the former for it is well-- settled that it is only in case of irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy that pro tanto repeal of a latter enactment can be implied. (See Crawford on Interpretation of Statutes, page 631 and Craies on Statute Law (7th Edn.), page 366).
10. The learned Additional Advocate-General has, however, 'referred to section 7(v) of Punjab Act I of 1993 in support of the contention that the Hon'ble Cooperative Judge alone can deal with the matter. On its plain reading, the provision does not support this contention. It merely enables the Cooperative Board to refer, inter alia, a case for execution of the decree or award in favour of such Society to the Cooperative 'Judge. Under section 17 of Punjab Act I of 1993, jurisdiction of other Courts is ousted only in respect of matters which fall within the jurisdiction of a Cooperative Board or a Cooperative Judge under that Act and not otherwise. There is nothing in Punjab Act I of 1993 which authorized either the Cooperative Board -or the learned Cooperative Judge to hear an application for setting aside an award rendered by the Arbitrators. It. Will be recalled that it was on an application made by the Punjab Cooperative Board for liquidation itself that the Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies had converted the proceedings pending against him into a - reference under section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
11. The question as to whether an appeal lies against an award of panel of " Arbitrators one of whom happens to be the Deputy Registrar with the powers of the Registrar, was examined by this Court in detail in Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman v. The Registrar, Cooperative Punjab etc. 1994 M LD 1637 and it was held that notwithstanding that the Deputy Registrar who had delivered the award had been conferred the powers of Registrar, he remains to be a Deputy Registrar and does not become a "Registrar" within the meanings of Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 and as such the appeal/application under section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 was competent before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies as defined by section 2(b) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925.
12. This brings me to the last ground which prevailed with the Registrar for dismissing the appeal which was that by virtue of section 16 of Punjab Act I of 1993, the application filed by the petitioner under section 54-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 stood abated which too has no validity. A bare reference to section 16 of Punjab Act I of 1993 would show that those proceedings which were pending against the Cooperative Societies which stood abated on coming into force of the said Act: In the present case, however, at the relevant time no proceedings against the Cooperative Societies were pending before any Court or Authority but on the other hand, what was pending were the proceedings initiated by the Cooperative Society itself. Consequently no question of abatement arose in such a case. Section 16, therefore, had no applicability whatsoever and it does not take away jurisdiction of the Registrar to hear application against the validity of award rendered by the Arbitrators.
13. The objection of the learned Additional Advocate-General that the petitioner should have availed of the departmental remedy by filing a revision before the Secretary, is not well-founded. A similar contention was raised in the case of Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman v. The Registrar, Cooperatives Punjab etc. 1994 M LD 1637 which was repelled by observing that if the Tribunal has failed to exercise jurisdiction on erroneous view of law, orders passed by it are void, notwithstanding non-filling of a revision, a Constitutional petition can be maintained before this Court.
No order as to costs.