The specific bar under sub-section (2) of section 136 of the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, and sub-section (2) of section 29 of the Limitation Act, excludes the applicability of all provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, including section 5, for appeals under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal involves an interesting question that when the petition filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been rejected with the observation that such rejection will not prevent the said respondents to approach the appellate Tribunal within ten days from the date of rejection, then whether such a leave and liberty to the said respondents to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal would thereby condone the delay, if any, in preferring such appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, if preferred within the said period of ten days. The facts giving rise to the present question may briefly be stated as follows: in a dispute between the appellant/company and the respondents No. 4 and 5 which are the Co-operative Spinning Mill and its Managing Director, the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies in exercise of its power under the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (hereinafter called as the said Act) passed an award dated 31st January, 2003. The said award was communicated in accordance with the provisions of law to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 on 14th February, 2003. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 challenged the said award dated 31st January, 2003 in a petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India before the Single Bench of this Court on 1st September, 2003. The said petition came to be disposed of on 7th September, 2005. The learned Single Judge upon hearing the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and the appellant/company disposed of the same by its order dated 7th September, 2005. The said order reads as under: the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal before the Co-operative Tribunal. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the award impugned in this revisional application. The revisional application is, therefore, rejected without any order as to costs. However, rejection of this application shall not prevent the petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal within ten days from this date. By way of abundant caution, I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the claim and the counter-claim of the parties and all questions are left open to be considered by the Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law.-Office is directed to return the certified copy of the award impugned to the learned Advocate-on-Record of the petitioners on her furnishing a xerox copy thereof. "

( 2 ) PURSUANT to the said order the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

( 3 ) THE respondent Nos. 4 and 5 had accordingly preferred the said appeal on 15th September, 2005 before the Appellate Tribunal against the said award dated 31st January, 2003. Necessarily the appeal was preferred under section 136 (1) of the said Xct. It is worthwhile to state that sub-section (2) of section 136 of the said Act reads as under:

"the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) shall not apply to appeal referred in sub-section (1)".

( 4 ) THE application for stay filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, upon filing of the appeal, while was taken up for hearing, the company raised a plea as to the limitation of the appeal filed by them before the Appellate tribunal. The question necessarily cropped up before the Appellate Tribunal as to whether the liberty to file the appeal within ten days from 7. 9. 2005 had saved the limitation or not; or in other words extended the period of limitation for filing the appeal.

( 5 ) ALTHOUGH the Appellate Tribunal observed that filing of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Court at calcutta cannot be termed as a bona fide proceeding before a Court without jurisdiction, yet it held that since the ld. Judge of this Court observed that rejection of the petition under Article 227 will not prevent the respondent nos. 4 and 5 to approach the Appellate Tribunal with further observation that this Court did not enter into the merits of th