STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SREE MEENAKSHI MILLS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the order of the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai, setting aside the award of the arbitrator dated 20 -1 -1970. The award itself was made under the following circumstances. Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd., Madurai, instituted a suit in O.S. 4 of 1964 on the file of the Sub -Court, Madurai, for referring a dispute between the Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. and the State Electricity Board, Madras, to an arbitrator for decision. The Electricity Board opposed the reference. But the Subordinate Judge directed the reference to be made to the arbitrator for decision on two questions -

(2.) THE question that fell for consideration by the Arbitrator turned upon the interpretation of G. O. Ms. No. 3069 PWD, dated 9 -7 -1956, whereby the Governor of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Madras Essential Articles Control and Requisitioning (Temporary Powers) Act, 1949 (Madras Act XXIX of 1949) as re -enacted by Madras Act VI of 1956, made an amendment to the Madras Elec. Supply (Government and Licensees Areas) Surcharge Order, 1954. According to this amendment, the surcharge referred to in clause 3 of the Surcharge Order, shall be levied on the overall charges referred to in clause (4) at the following rates :

(3.) THE learned Arbitrator has by writing a long order rendered it vulnerable to attack on the ground it is contrary to law. If after referring to the terms of reference he had, without any discussion, merely answered the same against Sree Meenakshi Mills, there could have been no scope for criticism against his award. But the learned Arbitrator chose to refer elaborately to the evidence and to express the process of ratiocination by which he arrived at a conclusion against Sree Meenakshi Mills. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Bungo Steel Furnitures v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 378