RAMESH CONDUCTORS P. LIMITED AND ORS. Vs. M & SE FACILITATION COUNCIL (MICRO & SMALL ENTERPRISES) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitions are filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1st Respondent, in Order Nos.M&SEFC/CBER/22/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/23/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/25/ 2015, M&SEFC/CBER/21/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/24/2015, M&SEFC/CBER/20/ 2015 dated 17.02.2015 and quash the same and to direct the 1st Respondent to refer the claims, dated 27.09.2013, 22.11.2013 of the Petitioners respectively, to Arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act.

(2.) The case of the Petitioners is as follows:-

(3.) Further, if it were to be adjudicated as an arbitration dispute, it should only be adjudicated by an odd number of arbitrators. In violation of these norms, the order has been passed pursuant to hearing by four officers of the Council. The petitioner Enterprise had chosen the process of conciliation as a first step as per Section 18(2) of the MSMED Act. The provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, with regard to conciliation are to be strictly observed by the first respondent. The provisions were not followed by the facilitation Council. Section 73 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act speaks about the manner in which the settlement is to be arrived at in conciliation proceedings which can only be done either through settlement or through a party asking for the proceedings to be terminated. The concept of an order denying a right to a particular party in a conciliation proceeding is beyond the scope of conciliation and the first respondent by doing so has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. The mandate of the first respondent, as with regard to conciliation was to merely look into the aspect of whether the conciliation was successful or not. On its failure, the Council has to refer the matter to arbitration as per Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, and is not authorized to grant an order rejecting the petitioner's claim. This itself goes against the very grain and purport of the act, which unequivocally envisages an arbitration and conciliation proceeding and only that. Till date, no order has been passed by the first respondent regarding the fact that conciliation has failed and then referring the matter to arbitration. Due to the clear inaction on the part of the first respondent, the petitioner had no choice but to send a detailed representation to the first respondent, detailing the aforementioned points and had made a request towards referring this matter to arbitration. The representation was sent by the petitioner on the 25th of April 2015 and till date there has been no reply to the same, nor any action taken towards the actualization of the same. The impugned order dated 17.2.2015, bearing No.M&SEFC/CBER/22/2015 is completely without jurisdiction and the authorities have no manner of authority to pass the said order. Hence, this Writ Petition has been filed for the relief as stated above.