THANKAM R PILLAI Vs. ARBITRATOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether an Arbitrator functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act (for short 'the Act') has power to implead the legal representatives of a deceased petitioner in a proceeding pending before him, is the important question raised for consideration in this appeal. While arguing for the position that the Arbitrator has such power, Smt. P. V. Asha, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1976 KLT 18 (Bhaskaran Nair v. Cooperative Tribunal, Trivandrum) wherein it has been held that there is no such power for the Arbitrator, requires reconsideration.

(2.) The question has arisen on the following facts and circumstances: Appellant's husband applied for a plot of land under the "30 acres Housing Scheme" of the second respondent society in 1978. A plot of 10 cents was allotted to him on remittance of an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as land value. Thereafter, the Society has cancelled the allotment. The cancellation was challenged before this court and the same was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh decision by the Society. The Society again cancelled the order if allotment. The fresh order passed was challenged in A. R. C. 57/87. The Arbitrator ultimately upheld the cancellation and found that the plaintiff is entitled to get only a refund of the amount deposited by him. The award so passed was challenged in A. P. No.109 of 1991 before the Cooperative Tribunal. As per Ext. P2 order, the Tribunal has set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Arbitrator for fresh disposal in accordance with law. While so, the appellant's husband expired on 11.8.1992. On the death of the original petitioner, the appellant and her son has filed petition for impleading them as the legal representatives of the deceased and to permit them to continue the pending proceedings. They have also filed a fresh petition before the Arbitrator as A. R. C. No. 20 of 1993 for the reliefs similar to that claimed in A. R. C. 57 of 1987. The Arbitrator has rejected the impleading petition as per Ext. P1 order holding that in the absence of specific provision enabling him to implead the legal representatives he has no jurisdiction to allow the application following the decision of this court in Bhaskaran Nair's case (1976 KLT 18) without prejudice to the right of the appellant to raise a fresh dispute and to proceed with the same or to file an appeal against the order and get appropriate relief from the Appellate Authority. The Arbitrator has also referred to the judgment in W. A. 312/76 filed against the judgment in Bhaskaran Nair's case which appeal was dismissed on facts, without going into the correctness of the legal questions decided by the learned Single Judge. In the Original Petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing Ext. P1 award and directing the first respondent to allow the application for impleadment filed by the appellant and to dispose of A. R. C. 57 of 1987 in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge dismissed the O. P. taking the view that since the petitioners have moved the Arbitrator by filing another arbitration case under S.69(i)(b) of the Act, there is no justification to interfere with the matter in these proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Judge further observed that the question whether the decision reported in 1976 KLT 18 (Bhaskaran Nair's case) requires reconsideration will be considered in appropriate cases.

(3.) From Ext. P1 order, it is clear beyond any doubt that the Arbitrator has rejected the impleading application solely for the reason that there is no specific provision enabling him to implead the legal representatives and that he has no inherent power to implead the legal representatives since the Arbitrator exercising power under the Act is not a civil court. This is precisely the reason on the basis of which Bhaskaran Nair's case was decided. It is relevant to note that the Arbitrator has also found that the appellant and her son are having a right to raise a similar dispute claiming similar relief under S.69(i)(b) of the Act and since no time limit is prescribed for raising such a dispute, there is no question of any prejudice being caused to them by the rejection of their prayer for impleadment. Alternatively, it was also found that the appellant and son may seek impleadment in an appeal filed against Ext. P1 award itself before the Tribunal.