J U D G M E N T

ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

1. Writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the impugned order dated October 01, 2021 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Delhi whereby the Revision Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner bank under Section 116 of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Act, 2003 (herein referred to as “the Act”) challenging an order dated July 02, 2021 passed under Section 105 of the Act in Execution Case No.158/2019- 20, was held to be non-maintainable on the ground that there is a provision of appeal provided under Section 112 (1)(k) of the Act.

2. The factual matrix falls in a narrow encompass.

i. Respondent No. 1, an employee of the petitioner co-operative bank, filed a claim petition under Section 70 of the Act, on which the matter was referred for arbitration under Section 71 of the Act.

ii. The learned arbitrator in arbitration case No. 1673/AR/ARB/15-16 passed an award dated April 14, 2016 and the relevant portion of the award is as follows:

“…

61. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I hereby set aside the letter dated 29.06.2015 issued by Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, Officiating CEO of the respondent bank through which the claimant was reverted from the Recovery Officer to Clerk- cum-Cashier being illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and the claimant is entitled to get all his service benefits since 27.08.2014 till date as Recovery Officer.

62. The salary of the claimant as Recovery Officer is again fixed from 27.08.2014 on the basis of his increased salary which should have been after adding 5 increments and directed to pay the arrear w.e.f. 27.08.2014.

63. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal on this 14 day of April 2016”

th iii. The petitioner bank challenged the award in Appeal, but could not succeed. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed proceedings for execution of the award, vide execution case No. 158/19-20.

iv. In execution proceedings, vide order dated July 02, 2021 passed under Section 105 of the Act, Assistant Collector / Respondent No. 3, directed the petitioner to pay the interest on arrears up to the actual date of payment and not till the date of award i.e. April 14, 2016.

v. The aforesaid order dated July 02, 2021 passed by Assistant Collector was challenged by the petitioner bank by way of Revision Petition under Section 116 of the Act before the Financial Commissioner / Respondent No. 2. Vide impugned order dated October 01, 2021 Financial Commissioner held that the Revision Petition is not maintainable, since a provision for appeal has been provided under Section 112(1)(k) of the Act. Revision Petition was accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum.

The impugned order passed by Financial Commissioner is challenged by way of present Writ Petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Financial Commissioner erred in holding that provision of appeal has been provided under Section 112(1)(k) of the Act against the order dated July 02, 2021 passed by Assistant Collector under Section 105 of the Act. It was urged that no such provision for appeal is provided under Section 112 of the Act and the only remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the Financial Commissioner by way of „Revision Petition‟ under Section 116 of the Act. Further, the proceedings could not have been preferred in appeal before the Tribunal under Section 114 of the Act. Reliance was further placed upon „L.K. Bahl vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi and Ors.‟, 45 (1991) DLT 573.

4. On the other hand the impugned order passed by the Financial Commissioner is supported by learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

5. We have given considered thought to the contentions raised. It is a well-settled principle that when a right or liability is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be made to that particular statutory