Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑144 and D‑1390 of 1980, decided on 6th April, 1987.

‑‑---S. 54‑‑Application of S. 54‑‑Arbitration‑‑Conditions precedent to be fulfilled before any of parties could invoke jurisdiction of Registrar or Deputy Registrar and call upon him to entertain a complaint or a reference.

‑‑‑Ss. 54, 54‑A, 55, 56, 59, 64, 64‑A & 71‑‑Cooperative Societies Rules, 1927, R. 32‑‑Power of settlement of disputes to Registrar or his nominee‑‑When dispute is determined solely either by Registrar or his nominee they render a decision which is not to be mixed up and has to be contrasted to a majority or unanimous award made by the Committee of three arbitrators presided over either by Registrar or his nominee‑ Registrar or his nominee do not undertake any arbitration proceedings‑ Decision of dispute by Registrar or his nominee is not a contractual arbitration or an arbitration by agreement but is in discharge of an obligation imposed by statute.

‑‑‑S. 54‑‑Heading "arbitration" to S. 54‑‑Connotation‑‑Heading pre‑fixed to a section or sets of sections to be read alongwith enacting part of sections while construing them with a view to resolve any doubt as to ambiguous words but cannot be used to give a different effect to the clear words in section‑‑Word "arbitration" as heading or title of S. 54, Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, was only a marginal note‑‑Such marginal notes now being enacted by legislature could be referred to for purpose of interpretation‑‑Marginal notes cannot control meaning of clear and unambiguous words used in enactment.‑‑[Interpretation of statutes].

‑‑‑S. 54‑‑Object of S. 54: Settlement of dispute by statutory functionaries.

P L D 1975 Kar. 12 and 1982 C L C 2374 ref.

‑‑‑Ss. 54 & 54‑A‑‑Arbitration‑‑Arbitration in proceedings before Arbitrators cannot touch the interest of strangers in giving award‑‑ Respondents whose interest was involved, held, were entitled to approach and apprise Registrar or Deputy Registrar real facts under S. 54‑A and Registrar was fully competent to hear and decide whether award was touching their interest in disputed property or not.

Aziz Din Ahmed v. Aziz Ahmed and others P L D 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 497 ref.

‑‑‑Ss. 54 & 54‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑ Arbitration‑‑Dispute over allotment of plots in housing colony‑‑Contention that Government had already executed lease in favour of some of respondents could not be decided in constitutional petition as respondents whose interest was involved had not cared to challenge the award‑‑Lease deed in favour of any party however, would not in any way be affected by any decision of the arbitrator‑‑Contemplation of abortive arbitration proceedings under S. 54, held, could not be attributed to legislature‑ Deputy Registrar might consider points in accordance with law if respondents approached and apprised him of facts under S. 54‑A.

Syed Abbas Zia for .Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent No.l.

Maroof Ali Khan for Respondent No. 2.

Muhammad Saleem Qureshi for Respondents Nos. 3 to 12.

Syed Ashfaque Hussain Jaffary for Respondent No. 4.

S.M. Noorul Hassan : Amicus curiae.

Date of hearing: 27th April, 1986.

.‑‑ Constitution Petition No. D‑144 of 1980 titled Firdous Co‑Operative Housing Society Ltd. , Karachi v. Secretary Labour and Co‑Operative Department, Government of Sind and others and Constitution Petition No. D‑1390 of 1980 titled Syed Munir Hussain v. Government of Sind and others raise some common questions of law so they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.

Constitutional Petition No. D‑144 of 1980.

The petitioners through this petition have prayed for the following reliefs: ‑--

(a) to declare that the Award dated 9‑7‑1975 in A.B.N. Case No.23 of 1975 and further orders dated 2‑12‑1975 and the last order of respondent No.l dated 24‑10‑1979 are null and void.

(b) Respondents Nos.l and 2 be restrained from executing the Award dated 2‑12‑1975.

(c) Costs of the petition be awarded.

(d) Any other relief be granted that may be found in favour of the petitioners in the circumstances of the case.

The relevant facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioners are the registered Co‑operative Housing Society Ltd. and were granted land by the Government of Pakistan through registered Deed dated 6‑8‑1958 and given possession consisting of piece or parcel of land measuring 57‑7 Acres in the city of Karachi for, the purpose of developing and constructing buildings thereon. The petitioners allotted the said land after developing to its members who have constructed buildings thereon. There are a large number of members who have paid the share money but have not been allotted any plot and the respondent No.2 is such a case.

It is the case of the petitioners that the Government of Pakistan is the landlord and granted all powers to the Authority viz. K.D.A. who approves the master plan and petitioners are bound by the approval of K.D.A. The petitioners sought conversion and sub‑division of a plot meant for ladies and gents club in the area licensed to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that in 1973 the K . D . A . granted the approval to the petitioners to sub‑divide the said plot into ten sub‑divided plots from the area originally meant for the said club and the Government of Pakistan charged conversion fees and sub‑division fees from the respondents 3 to 12 and thereafter the said plots were sub‑divided and plans of construction on the said plots were approved by K . D. A . and the respondents 3 to 12 raised constructions thereon after obtaining possession. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners allotted all the ten plots to its members, respondents Nos.3 to 12 who have been granted registered sub‑licence and some have been granted registered leases by the Government of Pakistan.

The respondent No.2 became a member of the petitioners in the year 1958 but paid requisite share money only in the year 1974 when she became qualified for any allotment. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had been promising her to allot a plot but she became desperate and having started campaign of vilification against them, the petitioners expelled her from the membership but on her representation the Deputy Registrar and the respondent No.1 set aside the expulsion order.

Disputes having arisen between the petitioners and the respondent No.2, relating to the conversion of amenity plot and allotment of ten plots to the said members, respondent No.2, by her application dated 11‑2‑1975 made to the Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies (Housing) Karachi, sought a reference to arbitration of three arbitrators, registrar's nominee and two other persons, one of whom to be nominated by each of the parties concerned under section 54 of the Sind Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925. The Deputy Registrar made an order of reference on 29‑2‑1975 and referred the disputes between the parties for determination to the three arbitrators, one nominated by him, one by the petitioners and the third by the respondent No.2. On 9‑7‑1975 the arbitrators unanimously held that the petitioners should allot a Plot to the respondent No.2 within one month from the date of the order by cancelling one of the 10 illegally and unconditionally allotted plots on the precedence established by the petitioners in respect of plot No.19/ 4‑A. The arbitrators also awarded compensation from the date of the application till delivery of allotted plot.

Being aggrieved by the unanimous award, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Registrar Co‑operative Societies, Karachi under section 56 of the said Act the Deputy Registrar by his order dated 2‑12‑1975 dismissed the appeal on the ground that no appeal is competent against a unanimous award. Against the said order of Deputy Registrar dated 2‑12‑1975, the petitioners filed appeal before the Secretary Labour and Co‑operative Department, Government of Sind under section 64 of the said Act, which was dismissed by an order dated 24‑10‑1979 on the legal ground that the unanimous award was not appealable under section 56 of the said act. The Deputy Registrar and the respondent No.l did not examine the claim of the petitioners on merits. The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition.

Constitutional Petition No. D‑1390 of 1980

The facts of the above petition are that the petitioner and respondent No.4 are the members of respondent No.3. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted membership of the respondent No.3 and the resp9ndent No.3 had allotted him Plot No.D‑1/610. It is the case of the petitioner that the said plot was demarcated and he had started construction after four months of possession. The respondent No.4 moved an application under section 54 of the Sind Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925, before the Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Karachi for seeking a reference to arbitration of four arbitrators Registrar's nominee the petitioner's nominee, the Societies nominee and the nominee of the respondent No. 4. The Deputy Registrar made an order of reference on 25‑3‑1978. On 9‑5‑1978 the arbitrators unanimously held that "the petitioner (defendant No.l) is entitled to the allotment of Plot No.l Survey No.610 measuring 520 square yards. However, defendant No.l (Society) respondent No.3 is directed to allot some other suitable plot to the plaintiff (respondent No.4) if she pays the balance dues. In case the plaintiff does not accept the plot then refund the amount of Rs. 5,000 with interest of 12 per annum from the date of the deposit".

Being aggrieved by the unanimous award, the respondents Nos .3 and 4 filed appeals before the Deputy Registrar, Co‑operative Societies, Karachi under section 56 of the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925 and the Deputy Registrar by his order dated 5‑6‑1979 modified the award, that "(a) the Society should allot a suitable plot of land to Mst. Wasilla Begum (respondent 4) within one month of the date of this order, or (b) the Plot No. D‑1 admeasuring 600 square yards should be bifurcated into two so as to crave out plots each measuring 300 square yards out of which one plot be allotted to Mst. Wasilla Begum retaining another one in favour of respondent Mr. Munir Hussain. The adjustment of the accounts with the society be made accordingly. Mst. Wasila Begum shall make payment of the construction on the side of the plot which may come in her possession to Mr. Munir Hussain after assessment of the cost of construction which assessment should be done by the Society. In case of any dispute in assessment the same shall be referred to me." Against the said order of Deputy Registrar dated 5‑6‑1979, the petitioner, the respondent No.3 and respondent No. 4 filed revision petitions under section 64‑A of the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925. The Secretary, Labour and Co‑operative by his order dated 28‑7‑1980 set aside the award as well as the order dated 5‑6‑1979 of the Deputy Registrar and directed that the Plot No. D‑1 be transferred to the respondent No.4 and further directed that the Society (respondent No.3) to allot an alternate plot to the petitioner failing which the Society shall refund full amount and pay interest at 12% per annum for the period the money remained with it to the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.

It is pertinent to note that the Society respondent No.3 also filed Constitutional Petition No. D‑1349 of 1980 against the order on 18‑9‑1980 in this Court which was admitted on 28‑9‑1980 but the same was withdrawn.

Mr. Syed Abbas Zia, the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the above petition has urged as follows:‑--

(i) The Deputy Registrar and respondent No.l erred in holding that the appeal against the unanimous award was not competent.

(ii) The award dated 9‑7‑1975 touched the interest of the strangers.

(iii) The Deputy Registrar could treat the appeal as an application under section 54‑A of the said Act.

On the other hand Mr. Maroof All Khan, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the appeal is not competent against the majority or unanimous award. The award does not touch the interest of strangers and the orders of the Deputy Registrar and the respondent No.l are in accordance with law.

Mr. Saleem Qureshi the learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 12 has supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. S. Mazhar Imam the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the respondent No.2 erred in entertaining appeal against a unanimous award the actions of the respondents 1 and 2 in setting aside the unanimous award is illegal.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 and the husband and attorney of the respondent No.4 supported the actions of the respondents 1 and 2 and have submitted that the appeal is competent against the unanimous award.

Mr. Noorul Hassan on Court notice to assist as amicus curiae has submitted that if the award by panel arbitrators is unanimous or by majority then appeal against it is not competent.

In order to appreciate the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned amicus curiae it may be advantageous to reproduce sections 54, 56 and 64 of the said Act and Rule 32 of Co‑operative Societies Rules, 1927, which read as under:‑--

"Section 54. Arbitration.‑‑If any dispute touching the business of a Society other than a dispute regarding disciplinary action taken by the Society or its committee against a paid servant of the Society arises‑

(a) between members or past members of the Society or persons claiming through a member or past member, or

(b) between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the Society, or

(c) between the Society or its committee, and past or present member of the Society, or

(d) between the Society or its committee and any past or present officer, agent of servant of the Society, or a surety of such officer, agent or servant, whether such surety is or is not a member of the Society, or

(e) between a financing bank authorised under subsection (1) of section 34 and a person who is not a member of a Society,

It shall be referred to the Registrar for decision by himself or his nominee, or if either of the parties so desires, to arbitration of three arbitrators who shall be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned.

A dispute shall include the question whether a person is or was a member of Society and also claims, by a Society for debts or demands due to it from a member, past member or non‑member whether such debts or demands be admitted or not:

Provided that if the question at issue between a Society and a claimant, or between different claimants, is one involving complicated questions of law and fact, the Registrar may, if he thinks fit, suspend proceedings in the matter until the question has been tried by a regular suit instituted by one of the parties or by the Society. If no such suit is instituted within six months of the Registrar's order suspending proceedings, the Registrar shall take action as laid down in paragraph 1 of this section."

"Section 56. Appeal against award of arbitrator.‑‑ Any party aggrieved by any decision o the Registrar's nominee made under section 54 or subsection (3) of section 54‑A or an order passed under section 55 by the Registrar's nominee or arbitrators may within one month of the date of the award or order appeal to the Registrar and the Registrar shall decide the appeal.

"Section 64. Appeals.‑‑An appeal against an order or decision of or sanctioned by the Registrar under section 10, 16, 45, 47, 50, 50‑A, 54 or subsection (3) of section 54‑A may be made by any party aggrieved or affected by the order or decision to the Provincial Government within two months of the date of the communication of the order.

"Rule 32. Exemption from compulsory registration of instruments relating to shares and debentures of Society.‑‑Nothing in section 17, subsection (1), clauses (b) and (c) o the Registration Act, 1908, shall apply to‑--

(1) any instrument relating to shares in a society, notwithstanding that the assets of the Society consist in whole or in part of immovable property or

(2) any debenture issued by any Society and not creating, declaring, assigning, limiting or extinguishing any rights, title or interest to or in immovable property except in so far as it entitles the holder to the security afforded by a registered instrument whereby the Society has mortgaged, conveyed or otherwise transferred the whole or part of its immovable property or any interest therein to trustees upon trust for the benefit of the holder of such debentures; or

(3) any endorsement upon or transfer of any debenture issued by any Society.

For a case to be covered under section 54 of the said Act, three conditions precedent must be fulfilled before any of the parties could invoke the jurisdiction of the Registrar or Deputy Registrar and call upon him to entertain a complaint or a reference. The first condition is that there must be dispute. Secondly, the dispute must be touching the business of a society. The term is wide enough and would include the dispute affecting the business of the society. The third condition is that it must arise between members or past members of the society or persons claiming through a member or past member or between members or past members or persons so claiming and any past or present officer, agent or servant of the society or between the society or its committee, and past or present member of the society. The language of the section indicates that the reference /complaint has to be made by one of the parties to the dispute to the Registrar and has to be referred to the Registrar. Once the reference /complaint is admitted by the Registrar, the dispute can be settled by any of the four forums contemplated by section 54. The Registrar may keep the matter himself. The Registrar may in the alternative appoint a nominee for his decision. The jurisdiction is conferred upon the Registrar in the statute. The jurisdiction of the nominee arises out of permissible appointment by the Registrar. The reference of the dispute to the Registrar for a decision himself or by his nominee is a statutory duty and there can be thus no refusal to discharge that function. The power to decide the referred dispute is granted by the Statute to the Registrar as also to his nominee.

Section 4 further provides that if either of the parties so desires, the dispute may be referred to arbitration of three arbitrators who be the Registrar or his nominee and two persons of whom one shall be nominated by each of the parties concerned. Fourth a panel of three arbitrators is to be presided over by the Registrar's nominee as Chairman of the Committee.

Section 71 of the said Act confers on the Provincial Government the power to make Rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. Although the enumeration of the various topics on which the Rules can be made are set out in subsection (2) of section 71, subsection (2) does not affect the generality of the power conferred by subsection (1) of that section, which in wide terms empowers the Provincial Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the said act. Clause (u) of subsection (2) says that the Rules may prescribe the mode of appointing an arbitrator or arbitrators and the procedure to be followed in proceedings before the Registrar or such arbitrator or arbitrators and for fixing and levying the expenses or determining the dispute. Rule 32 is, therefore, relatable to those powers. Once a dispute has been referred to the Registrar under section 54, the Registrar or his nominee has to issue a notice to all the parties. At that stage the parties have an option and unless either of the parties desires within 15 days of the issue of such notice that the matter be referred to arbitrator, the Registrar or his nominee has to proceed to decide the dispute. These are the two forums constituted on the failure of the action of the parties to seek arbitration. If either of the parties desires that the matter be referred to arbitration, then the Rule provides the manner of the appointment of the arbitrators by the parties and on their failure the nomination by the Registrar of an arbitrator on behalf of such defaulting party. The Registrar or his nominee has to act as Chairman of the committee of three arbitrators. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that there are four forums:‑ One of Registrar, second of his nominee, third a panel of three arbitrators presided over by the registrar as Chairman of the committee and fourth panel of three arbitrators presided over by the registrar's nominee as Chairman of the committee.

We have gone through the provisions of section 54 and Rule 32 and they virtually give the power of settlement of disputes to the Registrar or his nominee. By and large the power to decide the disputes vests in the Registrar or his nominee. It would therefore, be a misnomer to call their proceedings as arbitration proceedings. The Registrar or his nominee when acting alone has to decide the referred dispute and may be performing the functions substantially of an arbitrator to whom a dispute has been referred for adjudication but they do not make any award. They both render a decision whereas the committee of the three arbitrators has to make an award. This is clear from the intrinsic language contained in the various provisions of the Act. Section 54‑A says that in case of any award made by the arbitrators under section 54, the Registrar may, on the application of any of the parties to the award or on his own motion or otherwise for reasons to be recorded in ariting, modify the award or set it aside or order that the dispute shall be referred back to the arbitrators in the manner provided under the said section. The proviso, however, provides that no order can be made after the issuance of a certificate under section 59 for the execution of the award and except on any of the specified grounds, namely an objection to the legality of the award is apparent on the face of it, or (ii) the award has been vitiated in consequence of corruption or misconduct on the part of the arbitrators, or (iii) the award is in any way perverse. The Registrar is also empowered to direct that all or any one of the arbitrators who made the award shall not act as arbitrators for deciding the dispute. Subsection (3) says that when the dispute is referred back to the arbitration, the arbitrators have to make a fresh award within such time as may be fixed by the Registrar and if the arbitrators fail to make a fresh award within the time so fixed, then the Registrar or his nominee shall decide the dispute.

Section 56 provides for an appeal against the decision of the Registrar or his nominee whether made under section 54 or under subsection (3) of section 54‑A or an order passed under section 55 by the Registrar's nominee or arbitrator.

Section 57 further provides that the award of the arbitrators or a decision by the Registrar or his nominee under section 54 or 54‑A or an order passed in appeal by the Registrar under section 56 shall, subject to the provisions of section 64 or 64‑A, be final and conclusive and shall not be liable to be called in question in any civil or revenue Court. This section again maintains the distinction between the award of the arbitrators and a decision by the Registrar or his nominee. A combined reading of the above‑noted statutory provisions clearly brings out the intention of the Legislature that when the dispute is determined solely either by the Registrar or his nominee, they render a decision which is not to be mixed up and has to be contrasted to a majority or unanimous award made by the committee of three arbitrators presided over either by the Registrar or his nominee.

The learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the heading of the section as "arbitration". In our opinion, the heading prefixed to a section or sets of sections may be read alongwith the enacting part of sections while construing them with a view to resolve any doubt they may have as to ambiguous words. But the heading cannot be used to give a different effect to the clear words in the section. The heading of a section does not also prevail, where the intention of the Legislature can, be gathered by reference to other sections. Mr. Abbas Zia has submitted that the word 'arbitration' is the title or heading of the section. We are of the view that it cannot be inferred the word 'arbitration' as the title or heading of the section. It is only a marginal note. Marginal notes are side notes often provided at the side of a section in an Act. In the earlier statutes marginal notes were not inserted by the Legislature and hence were not part of the statute. For this reason they could not be referred to for the purpose of construing the statute. Now they are being enacted by the Legislature and can be referred to for the purpose of interpretation. If the words used in the enactment are clear and unambiguous, the marginal notes cannot control the meaning.

Mr. Noorul Hassan has invited out attention to various sections of the statute wherein the legislature used the words "order", "decision", "award".

Section 4 of the said Act used the word "order".

Proviso of subsection (2) of section 5 used the word "decision". Section 8 used the word "decision". Section 22 used the word "order". Section 34 (2) used the word "order".

Sections 34 (4) and 50 and 53 used the word "sanction".

Section 39, Rule 50‑A used the word "order".

Section 54 used the word "decision".

Section 54‑A used the word "award" of the three arbitrators.

Section 59 used the word "order".

As we have pointed out earlier, the Legislature has intended what it said in contrasting the decision of the Registrar or his nominee and by providing an appeal against that decision to that of a majority or unanimous award by the committee of three arbitrators. The Registrar or his nominee do not undertake any arbitration proceedings. They discharge the statutory duty and perform the function of deciding the referred dispute. The decision of the dispute by the Registrar or his nominee is not a contractual arbitration or an arbitration by agreement. It is in discharge of an obligation imposed by the statute.

The object of the Act is for the settlement of the dispute by statutory functionaries namely, the Registrar or his nominee with a limited extension by a committee of three arbitrators presided over by the Registrar or his nominee in case the parties to the dispute so desire. The Act is so designed as to give an early decision by the Registrar or his nominee and in some cases also associating parties nominees on the panel of arbitrators. In the Act, the function is entrusted to the Registrar and there is no period fixed either in Act or in the rules during which the Registrar is required to give decision. When any dispute is referred to the Registrar's nominee or to the committee of three arbitrators it is required to be concluded by them within two months or such further period as the registrar may allow. The Legislature has intentionally made a variation or change in the language directing the Registrar to decide the dispute himself or refer again to his nominee for decision.

The learned counsel for the parties' have relied upon decisions of this Court reported as PLD 1975 Kar. 12 and 1982 CLC 2374. With respect, we entirely concur in the view aforesaid.

The contention of Mr. Syed Abbas Zia is that the panel of arbitrators were incompetent to make an award in the absence of respondents 3 to 12 as they touch the interests of strangers. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the allotment orders annexed to the counter‑affidavit filed by the respondent No. 8. It is an admitted position that the respondents 3 to 12 did not file any application under section 54‑A before the Registrar of Co‑operative Societies, Karachi. We would not like to make any comment on the factual question connected with the ground of touching their interests in plots of land allotted to them. However, it is well‑settled position in law that the arbitrators in the proceedings before them cannot touch the interest of stranger in giving the award. Reliance is placed on Aziz Din Ahmed v. Aziz Ahmed and others P L D 1959 (W.P.) Kar. 497 in which a Division Bench of the then West Pakistan High Court, Karachi Bench observed that "under the ordinary law no arbitration is effective unless and until all the parties interested in the dispute join the arbitration proceedings. Both under the English Law and Indo‑Pakistan Law if the arbitrator in deciding the dispute referred to him touches the interest of strangers, such action is considered to be in excess of his authority and the award is treated as void". With respect we subscribe to the view expressed in the said case. The respondents 3 to 12 are entitled to approach and apprise the Registrar or the Deputy Registrar of the real facts under section 54‑A of the said Act. The Registrar is fully competent to hear and decide whether the award was touching their interests in the property or not.

The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Government of Pakistan has already executed lease in favour of some of the respondents. This point also we cannot decide in this petition as the respondents 3 to 12 have rot cared to challenge the award. However, it is an admitted position V law that the lease deed in favour of any party will not in any way affected by any decision of the arbitrator. In such circumstances award will be a waste paper and in our opinion it cannot be attributed to the Legislature that under section 54 of the said Act abortive arbitration proceedings are contemplated. It is also to be observed that the Deputy Registrar may consider the points in accordance with law if the respondents 3 to 12 approach and apprise him of the facts under section 54‑A. Before we conclude this judgment, we feel it our duty also to place on record our appreciation of the very able assistance given to this Court by Mr. Nurul Hasan for the enormous amount of research undertaken by him and the willing assistance rendered by him as amicus curiae.

In the result this Petition No. D‑144 of 1980 is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. "

With the above judgment and observation this Petition No. D‑1390 of 1980 is allowed and in consequence thereof the impugned orders of respondents 1 and 2 are set aside and the award dated 5‑6‑1961 is restored but there shall be no order as to costs.

S.Q./F‑6/K Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.