Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. The petitioner is the Apex Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank having its Head Office at Thiruvananthapuram, with branches across the State. In its Regional Office at Kasaragode, the second respondent's wife, Smt. Syamala worked from 16.06.1995 to 18.11.2005 as a Sweeper on daily wage basis. Later, having been afflicted with cancer, she could not continue in service. She died on 15.03.2007. In the course of time, the second respondent, being the husband and legal representative, filed A.R.C. No. 84/2008 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the first respondent, claiming that his wife, the erstwhile employee of the petitioner Bank, was entitled to regularisation of service in terms of Exhibit PI Government Order and consequentially, for the arrears of salary and other service benefits. Then, the first respondent passed Exhibit P2 order dated 31.03.2010 directing regularisation of the second respondent's wife and also the payment of consequential benefits to the second respondent.

2. Soon after his obtaining Exhibit P2 order, the second respondent filed Exhibit P3 execution petition, which was not initially numbered, it seems, on the grounds that no proper court fee was paid. At that juncture, the second respondent approached this Court and invited Exhibit P4 judgment, in compliance with which the executing authority numbered the application and took up the matter.

3. Despite Exhibit P5 objections filed by the petitioner, the first respondent passed Exhibit P6 order authorising the Joint Registrar to execute Exhibit P2 order. Aggrieved, the petitioner Bank has filed the present writ petition questioning both Exhibit P2 primary order and also Exhibit P6 order in execution.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that ever since the amendment of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ('the Act' for brevity); i.e., from 2003, all service disputes of whatever nature shall be adjudicated upon by the Arbitration Court, but not by the Registrar. In that context, he has placed reliance on P.S. Ravendran v. State of Kerala and Others, 2007 (3) KHC 780.

5. Faced with a specific question why the petitioner has not raised the objection concerning the jurisdiction either before the primary authority or before the executing authority, both of whom have been incidentally the same, the learned counsel has submitted that, first, it is a pure question of law that can be raised at any point of time; second, once a quasi-judicial authority, or even, for that matter, a judicial authority has inherently lacked jurisdiction, consent of the parties does not confer jurisdiction. Thus contended the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P2 and consequential Exhibit P6 are non est as being ultra vires of the first respondent. In support of his submissions, he has also placed reliance on Chief Engineer, Hydel Project and Others v. Ravinder Nath and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 350, Cantonment Board and Another v. Church of North India, (2012) 12 SCC 573 and Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) No. 19579/2015 dated 28.09.2015, 2010, (an unreported judgment).

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the second respondent with equal vehemence has submitted that the objection on the part of the petitioner Bank suffers from the vice of delay and laches. In elaboration, he has submitted that though the second respondent initiated proceedings in till recently, until Exhibit P6 order was passed by the first respondent, the petitioner had never raised any objection concerning the jurisdiction of the authority.

7. The learned counsel, placing reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Madras in G. Ashokan v. The District Collector and R. Lakshmi v. The Chief Engineer (Personnel), has further contended that despite the death of the employee, her legal heirs are eminently entitled to take up the issue of service