UNION OF INDIA Vs. GHAZIABAD RAILWAY STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an order setting aside the award.

(2.) M/s. Ghaziabad Railway Station Co-operative Labour Contract Society, ob tained a contract for loco coal handling at the Ghaziabad station from the Northern Railway. Disputes arose between the par ties. The General Manager Northern Rail way, in accordance with the Arbitration clause in the agreement, appointed Sri R. C. Tandon, an officer of the Railway, as an Arbitrator, by an order dtd. 7/8/1964. The Arbitrator gave an award in favour of the Railways, on 5/4/65. The Railway authori ties moved an application under Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act, praying that the award may be made the rule of the Court and a decree be passed for Rs.58,038.60 aerialist the aforesaid Society. The Society filed objections under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act. The learned Civil Judge upheld the objections and set aside the award. He found that the Arbitrator did not serve either a copy or any notice of the claim made by the Railway authorities before him on the Society. He was guilty of judicial misconduct and the award was as such vitiated.

(3.) It appears that in August 1964 the Arbitrator served a notice on be So ciety requiring it to file its claim before the Arbitrator by 28/8/64. A Copy of this notice was also sent to the Divisional Superin tendent, Northern Railway. Thereafter the Arbitrator sent several notices requiring the Society to file its claim petition before him by the given date. Copies of these notices were sent to the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway. In spite of these notices, the Society did not lodge any claim petition before the Arbitrator. Then on 12/11/64 the Arbitrator sent a letter to the Divisional Superintendent informing him that the So ciety has filed no claim petition and direct ing him to appear on 23/11/64 to put up their case before the Arbitrator. A copy of this letter was sent to the Society also. On 23/11/64, the Divisional Superintendent appears to have lodged a claim petition on behalf of the Railway before the Arbitrator. No copy of this claim, or any informa tion of its details, was served on the Society either by the Divisional Superintendent or by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator did not call upon the Society to meet this claim, with the result, that the Society had no notice of the claim made by the Railway. The Arbitrator fixed 7/12/64 for hearing. He sent a letter to the Divisional Superin tendent informing him of this date and ask ing him to appear with the original docu ments; a copy of this letter was sent to the Society. It is noticeable that even at this stage the Arbitrator did not apprise the So ciety of the claim made by the Railway, nor did he inform the Society to appear and contest the claim. The Arbitrator heard the Divisional Superintendent on 7/12/64 ex Earth and closed the hearing. Thereafter e gave the award on 5/4/65.