ARBITRATION ACT IN THE MATTER OF DISPUTES BETWEEN BHARAT TRANSPORT AND MADRAS FERTILIZERS LTD K R VEERASWAMI DISTRICT JUDGE RETD Vs. BHARAT TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GOVARDHAN, J. 1. In O.P. No. 153/1995, the petitioner contends as follows; This Court by an order dated 4-12-1992, made in arbitration suit C.S. No. 550/1991 has been pleased to appoint the petitioner as an Arbitrator to arbitrate the dispute between the respondents in that application. After enquiry, the petitioner has passed an award on 23-12-1994 and has filed the same in Court along with the connected records. The Court may be pleased to receive the award together with the records and pass suitable orders.

(2.) THE award was received. Advocates have entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) THE first respondent has filed a counter contending as follows: THE contract between the first respondent and the petitioner has been renewed periodically. During the period of contract, the petitioner denied several payments by illegally recovering and holding payment of the bills, disallowing various amounts from and out of the bills submitted without assigning any reason and failed to pay for additional work besides denying the payments for additional wage expenses on account of the settlement made before the Labour Commissioner. THErefore, dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondent. THE petitioner did not appoint any Arbitrator in spite of having been called upon to do so. It is only as per the order of this Court, the second respondent has been appointed as Arbitrator. No misconduct as such, has been made out in the O.P. and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. It is for the petitioner to show and justify as to how the first respondent is liable for the amounts for which payment has been denied or recovered by the petitioner. Just because money is available with them, the petitioner cannot withhold payments. THE demand made by the first respondent does not amount to waiver of the rest of the claim of the first respondent. It only establishes that the petitioner had failed to pay even, the admitted amount. THE learned Arbitrator, after considering the facts placed before him, has passed the award. Tokens were issued not only to the employees of the first respondent but also to the employees of other contractors. At no point of time, any particular labourer of the first respondent was accused of not returning the token. THE token is made of plastic of the size of one rupee coin. THE cost of manufacturing the same may not be more than 0.50 p. per token. THE rate of the contract was fixed on the basis of the wages payable to the labourer and the number of labourers to be supplied. THE petitioner was the principal employer, and the fist respondent, was the Contracter supplying the labourers. Whenever there is any increase in the liability towards any payment to the labour, the petitioner is bound to compensate the same. THE petitioner having directed the first respondent to do certain additional work, cannot deny payment of the same after having derived the benefit of the same. THEre is no ground to set aside the award. THE petition is liable to be dismissed.