Judgment :- 1. Petitioner is the widow of one Sri Ayyappan Nair, hereinafter referred to the defaulter, who was the paid Secretary of the 1st respondent Co-operative Society for the period from 191968 to 30 81972 on which date he died. On 20 91974 the 1st respondent issued a notice to the petitioner stating that the petitioner was to make good a sum of Rs. 10,33123 stated to have been misappropriated by the defaulter while he was holding the charge of paid Secretary of the Society. To that notice a reply denying the misappropriation alleged is stated to have been sent by the petitioner. Later on, a notice dated 13101974 was issued by the 1st respondent Society to the petitioner. Ultimately the first respondent initiated arbitration proceedings for the recovery of the amount due, before the 2nd respondent with the petitioner as the defendant, she being the legal heir of the deceased defaulter. The gist of the award dated 29 31976 passed by the 2nd respondent is stated to have been received by the petitioner on 25 61976. Thereafter on 27 91976 the petitioner filed an appeal. Later on she had also sent an application for condoning the delay stating the reasons in that regard, The challenge in this writ petition is directed against Ext. P2 order dated 27-1-1977 on Miscellaneous Application No 245/76 passed by the 3rd respondent, the Co-operative Tribunal, Trivandrum. 2. Sri V N. Achutha Kurup, the counsel for the petitioner, submitted that under R.100 (3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, the Secretary to the Tribunal had a statutory duty to issue notice to the petitioner and to give her a reasonable opportunity of showing whether the appeal was filed within time. Sub-rule (3) of R.100 reads as follows: "If the Secretary finds, that the appeal or application presented to him does not conform to any of the provisions in the Act and these rules, he shall make a note on the appeal or application to the effect and call upon the party concerned or his agent or Pleader by a notice in Form No. 19 of Appendix II to cure the defects within a reasonable period to be specified by him or where the appeal or application has not prima facie been made within the period of limitation, to show cause why it should not be rejected as time barred. The Secretary, may for sufficient cause extend the period for the purpose of curing the defects or showing cause as aforesaid provided that if extension of more than 15 days is sought the Secretary shall place the matter before the Tribunal and obtain orders on that behalf." (Emphasis supplied). 3. The counsel for the 1st respondent Society and also the Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submitted that on the petitioner's own showing the appeal was preferred out of time and therefore there is no scope for interference in the matter. They also contended for the position that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable to the appeal or other proceedings before the Arbitrator or the Co-operative Tribunal, and there was no question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 4. In as much as there are no indications that the proceedings before the Co-operative Tribunal are in the nature of proceedings in a court, I have no no doubt in holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act would not be applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal and there is no question of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. On the question of limitation there is, however, dispute as to how and from which point of time it has to be reckoned. R.68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules lays down the mode of communication of orders and decisions in deciding disputes, and it is to the following effect: "An award, decision or order passed by the Registrar or any other person deciding the dispute or the arbitrator referred to in S.70 of the Act, shall be sent to the applicant by the Registrar with his seal affixed thereon, by registered post. One copy of the award, decision or order shall be retained in the file concerned and the same kept intact for a period of 12 years. A gist of the award shall also be communicated by the Registrar to the defendants, by the post in case they are not present at the time of delivering the order or decision." Under R.98 of the rules a certified copy of the order or award is to accompany the memorandum of appeal. Sub-rule (i) of R.98 reads as follows: "98. Form of appeals and applications. Sub-rule (i) of R.98 reads as follows: "98. Form of appeals and applications. (i)(a) Every appeal Memorandum to the Tribunal under sub-section (i) of S.82 shall be in Form ' No.15 of Appendix II of these rules and be verified in the manner specified therein. (b) It shall be in duplicate and be accompanied by the following: (i) Two copies (one of which shall be a certified or authenticated copy of the original of the order, decision or award appealed against bearing court fee stamps of Rs. 1.50) (ii) by such number of additional copies of appeal memorandum and its enclosures as there are respondents; and (iii)Treasury receipt evidencing the payment of the fees prescribed under R.123." 5. From a reading of R.68 and 98 of the Rules and S.82(f) of the Act what emerges is that: (i) the appeal has to be preferred within sixty days from the date of the order or award; (2) unless the order or award was delivered in the presence of the parties, the date of communications of the award or the gist of the award or decision should be treated as the date of the order or award for the purpose of reckoning limitation; and as sub-rule (1) of R.98 requires the certified copy of the order, decision or award to accompany the memorandum of appeal, the time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the order, decision or award also should be excluded from the period of limitation prescribed unless, instead of the gist, an attested or certified copy of the order, decision or award, as the case maybe, is sent by the arbitrator to the party concerned, while complying with the provisions of R.68 of the Rules. By way of obiter, I have observed in Para.3 of the judgment dated 17 71979 in O. P. No. 3858 of 1977-H: (1979 KLT. 668). "If, as a matter of fact, the gist of the award is communicated by the arbitrator to the defendant under R.68 of the Rules, it may be that the period of limitation commences from the date of the receipt of it, and the time, if any taken for obtaining a certified, copy could not possibly be excluded". 668). "If, as a matter of fact, the gist of the award is communicated by the arbitrator to the defendant under R.68 of the Rules, it may be that the period of limitation commences from the date of the receipt of it, and the time, if any taken for obtaining a certified, copy could not possibly be excluded". When the impact of sub-rule (1) of R.98 also is taken into account, the safer and more correct view would be that, the time taken for obtaining the certified or attested copy of the order, decision or award, appealed against, also is bound to be excluded while reckoning the period of limitation for filing the appeal. 6. In this case the date on which the certified copy of the award was actually received by the petitioner does not appear, to have been precisely stated. No doubt, the Government Pleader as well as the counsel for the 1st respondent have submitted that the petitioner herself has stated that the copy was issued on 27 71976, and therefore even if that is treated as the date on which the copy was received by the petitioner and limitation is reckoned from that date, the appeal preferred on 27 9 1976 was out of time, In as much as factual questions relating to the date of receipt of the certified copy are not clear beyond doubt now, and a statutory obligation is seen cast on the Secretary to the Tribunal to call for the explanation of the petitioner where he has reason to believe that the appeal was preferred out of time. I think, the reasonable course to be adopted in this case is to clarify the position, and to give directions as follows: (i) The provisions of the Limitation Act will not apply to the proceedings before the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal, and therefore there is no question of condoning delay if, as a matter of fact, the appeal was filed out of time. (2) In computing the period of limitation time taken by the petitioner for obtaining the certified or attested copy of the award against which appeal is sought to be filed will be, excluded (3) The date of limitation, unless the order, decision or award is pronounced in the presence of parties, would commence from the date of communication of the order, decision or award. (4) The Secretary to the Tribunal will issue a notice to the petitioner in terms of R.100 (3) of the Rules, and satisfy himself whether the appeal was preferred in time, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above quashing Ext. P2 order of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.