SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 14-12-1999, passed in Civil Revision No,47-D of 1996.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a dispute arose out of a contract of construction of Cantonment Public High School, Multari. The dispute was referred to a Committee of Arbitration consisting of Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Farooq Ali Qureshi as Chairman, Mr. Lqbal Muhamamd .Bhatti, Advocate, Mr. Billimoria, Garrison Engineer and Assistant Garrison Engineer. The Committee was constituted on 8-3-1979. Some proceedings were taken in April, 1979. Petitioner filed an application on 3-4-1982 under section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, wherein Cantonment Board, Multan and Lt.-Col. (Retd.) Farooq Ali Qureshi were cited as respondents. It was averred in the application that respondent No,2 was appointed Sole Arbitrator by the parties and that he had pronounced his award and communicated the same on 10-3-1982., whereunder Cantonment Board, Multan/respondent No,1 had been held liable to' pay a sum of Rs,1,73,789.17 to the petitioner. It was prayed that the award be ordered to be filed in the Court and judgment passed in terms thereof.
Respondent No,2 filed a reply, which was signed by him as well as his counsel Mian Jalil Ahmad, Advocate. In the said reply, respondent No,2 admitted the assertions of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator. He also stated that he communicated his award to the parties.
Respondent No,1, contested the said application and denied that respondent No,2 was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator. It was also deposed that the award was a result of collusion inter se. It was also pointed out that respondent No,2 was issued notices on 8-4-1982 and his counsel made appearance on 15-6-1982, but the reply was typed on 6-4-1982 i,e, even before the notices were issued to him. It was further stated that respondent No,2 had no authority to act as a Sole Arbitrator. The matter remained pending when it was ordered that the award be filed on 20-10- 1982. On the said date, it was noted that the award was on the file and the case was adjourned for filing of objections to 20-11-1982. On the said date objections were filed. After framing the issues and recording of evidence of the parties, the trial Court refused to set aside the award and made the same Rule of the Court vide order dated 13-4-1988. Against the aforesaid order, , appeal filed by respondent No,1 was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Multan, vide order dated 16-10-1995.
3. Feeling aggrieved,' respondent No,1 filed a revision, which was allowed by a learned Single Judge in Chambers vide impugned judgment dated 14-12-1999. Hence, this petition. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, inter alia, contended that in striking down the decrees concurrently passed by the trial Court on 13-4-1988 and affirmed by the First Appellate Court on 16-10-1995, the learned Judge in Chambers did not appreciate the provisions of section 265(2) of the Cantonments Act, 1924, under which, in case of lack of agreement by the majority, the decision of the Chairman was to prevail; that it was not incorrect in describing respondent No,2 as Sole Arbitrator, who while appearing in the Court, as witness, explained the position; that no civil revision is competent before the High Court in the circumstances of the case; that by virtue of section 260(2). (ibid) the decision of respondent No,2 attained finality; that the learn- ed Judge in Chambers also failed to appreciate that Committee of Arbitration was a domestic Tribunal and was not bound to follow all formalities; that the status of Chairman of the Committee of Arbitration was that of an empire under the Arbitration Act (X of 1940); that the learned High Court also did not appreciate the decision, in the circumstances of the case, could be signed by respondent No,2 alone; and that the learned Judge in Chambers did not pay proper attention to proceedings of the Committee of Arbitration Exh.A-2, where more than three members besides the Chairman were present; and that the impugned judgment is not sustainable.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, learned Advocate Supreme Court for respondent No,1, vehemently controverted the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of the provisions of the Arbitration Act as well as that of Cantonments Act, that respondent No,2 was not a Sole Arbitrator and he misconducted on his part while awarding the Arbitration; that the valid objections were filed before the trial Court, which were not considered by it; that the matter was referred to the Arbitrator in. The year 1978, and its proceedings started in (he same year and the first meeting was held; that three years long time was taken by the Arbitrator to finalize his recommendations; that no sufficient evidence was adduced before the trial Court to show that the Committee ever made and the decision was taken by the Committee itself.
6. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have minutely examined the record. Admittedly, the matter was referred to a Committee, which manifests from the statement of respondent No,2 himself while depositing in Court on 13-3-1989 on Oath, as A.W.1, affirming that there was a Committee of Arbitration and he was Chairman of the Committee, whereas inadvertently he had mentioned as Sole Arbitrator in the award and that last meeting of the Committee took place on 16-4-1979. .In cross-examination he admitted that he had been preparing notes in respect of the meeting of the Committee but they are not available as the same were torn out by him. He further admitted that he did not make any effort to obtain the signatures of other Members of the Committee on the award. From his evidence it further transpires that while he was writing the award, no member of the Committee was present. He further went on to admit that when the award was being typed on stamp paper even at that time none of the Members of the Committee was present. He was further questioned as to why he waited till 10-3-1982 when the award was announced, whereas the last meeting of the award as mentioned hereinabove was held on 16-4-1979, his reply was that one of the Members had suffered a heart-attack and he himself had proceeded to Oman. In his evidence he miserably failed to give particulars of his leaving the country for Oman. The contention of respondent No,2 that he was the Sole Arbitrator, is not borne out from the record and he had totally taken summer salt. It would be advantageous to reproduce here sections 260,262 and 265 of the Cantonments Act, 1924 which read as under:-- "260. Application for a Committee of Arbitration.--In the event of any disagreement as the liability of a (Board) to pay compensation under this Act, or as to the amount of any compensation so payable, the person claiming such compensation may apply to the (Board) for the reference of the matter to a Committee of Arbitration, and the (Board) shall forthwith proceed to convene a Committee of Arbitration to determine the matter in dispute."
262. Constitution of Committee of Arbitration.---(1) Every Committee of Arbitration shall consist of five members, namely--
(a) a Chairman who shall be a person not in the service of the (State) or the (Board), and who shall be nominated by the (Officer Commanding the Station);
(b) two persons nominated by the (Board); and
(c) two persons nominated by the other party concerned; (x x x).
(2) If the (Board) or the other party concerned or the (Officer. Commanding the Station) fails within seven days of the date of issue of the notice referred to in section 261 to make any nomination which it or he is entitled to make or, if any member who has been so nominated neglects or refuses to act and the (Board) or other person by whom such member was nominated fails to nominate another' member in his place within seven days from the date on which it or he may be called upon to do so by the District Magistrate, the District Magistrate, shall forthwith appoint a member or members, as the case may be, to fill the vacancy or vacancies.
265. Decisions of Committee of Arbitration.---(1) The decision of every Committee of Arbitration, shall be in accordance with the majority of votes taken at a meeting at which the Chairman and at least three of the other members are present.
(2) If there is not a majority of votes in favour of any proposed decision, the opinion of the Chairman shall prevail.
(3) The decision of a Committee of Arbitration shall be final and shall not be questioned in any Court."
7. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the two Courts below did not consider the case in its proper perspective, and totally in disregard of the provisions of law made the award Rule of the Court, but the learned High Court in revision very rightly reversed the impugned judgments. The relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment of the High Court read as under:-- "6. I completely fail to understand as to how the learned Courts below have treated the Award Exh.R-1 to be award of the majority of arbitrators. Section 10(3) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 covers the situation. It provides that where more than three Arbitrators are appointed, the award of the majority or if the arbitrators are equally divided in their opinion, the award of the umpire shall, unless the arbitration agreement otherwise provides, prevail. Section 14(1) of the said Act provides that when the arbitrators or umpire have made their award, they shall sign it and shall give notice in writing to the parties of the making and signing thereof. The award had not been signed by the arbitrators within the meaning of section 14(1) of the said Act.
7. Apart from violation of the general terms pertaining to arbitration in the said Act, the award and the proceedings are also violative of the statutory provisions contained in the Cantonments Act, 1924 dealing with the constitution and conduct of a Committee of Arbitration. In particular section 265(1) thereof which provides that the decision of every Committee of Arbitration shall be in accordance with the majority of votes taken at a meeting at which the Chairman and at least three of the other members are present. Even if I accept the statement of the respondent No,2 and the A.W.2 and A.W.3, the decision yet falls short of the said requirement of the said provisions of law."
8. In our considered view, the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of facts and law. There is no misreading, or non-reading of evidence, material irregularity, or misconstruction of law.
9. For the foregoing facts, reasons and circumstances, this petition is dismissed and leave to appeal declined.