MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LIMITED Vs. METRO TYRES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. With the consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for disposal.

(2.) Petitioner/MTNL is aggrieved by the award bearing No.MTNL/DGM/(IA.)/ARB/6444334/001 dated 23.12.2000, passed by the Arbitrator, Mr.Anil Ailawadi, Dy.General Manager of MTNL. The dispute with regard to the outstanding bills in respect of telephone No.6444334 were referred to arbitration, pursuant to the order passed in, CW.No.2251/97 by this Bench on 8.8.2000. MTNL had, accordingly, appointed the arbitrator, who after calling upon the parties, inviting their claims and completion of pleadings, heard the matter, made and published the impugned award.

(3.) Mr.Ravi Sikri, learned counsel for the petitioner, assails the award as being an unreasoned one. He submits that there were three bills, which were subject matter of dispute, namely bill dated 1.9.1996 for Rs.3,55,491. bill dated 1.11.1996 for Rs.2102/- and bill dated 1.1.1997 for Rs.1,66,653/-. The bills are in respect of telephone No.6444334 installed at premises bearing No.134/4 & 134/5, Jamrudpur, Kailash Colony, New Delhi. The finding of the arbitrator that "Dynamic Locking facility" was not available with the subscriber/claimant is claimed to be an error apparent on the face of the record. It is also urged that MTNL could not be faulted with in not providing details of STD/ISD calls." The finding ignores that it was on account of the technical constraints of the exchange that these details could not be furnished. Besides Mr. Sikri States that the respondent in any case did not make a grievance of it and did not demand these details. Therefore, the arbitrator in relying on these two findings in making the award had mis-conducted the proceedings and the award was, therefore, liable to be set aside. The award does not contain any reasons for the rebate given. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.L.Jaggi Vs. M.T.N.L. and Ors. reported at JT 1996 (1) Supreme Court 215 and judgment of this Bench in Surinder Bhushan Gupta Vs. M.T.N.L. and Another reported at 2002 V A.D.(Delhi) 224. In M.L.Jaggi Vs. (Supra) the Supreme Court while emphasising the requirement of a reasoned award under Section 7B, observed that, "When the arbitrator decides the dispute under Section 7-B, he is enjoined to give reasons in support of his decision since it is final and cannot be questioned in a Court of law. The only obvious remedy available to the aggrieved person against the award is judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the reasons are not given, it would be difficult for the High Court to adjudge as to under what circumstances the arbitrator came to his conclusion that the amount demanded by the Department is correct or the amount disputed by the citizen is unjustified. The reasons would indicate as to how the mind of the arbitrator was applied to the dispute and how he arrived at the decision."