CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA LTD Vs. SRINIVASA PEETI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is against a judgment of the First Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad directing the appellant to file the original agreement entered into between it and the respondent, within 15 days and further directing the appellant and the respondent to submit one name each for appointment as arbitrators, together with the affidavit of consent by the arbitrators for entering upon arbitration; in default whereof, the Court expressed its intention to appoint the arbitrators.

(2.) The suit was filed by the respondent against the appellant Bank and the Chief Agent of the Bank alleging that under the service agreement, whereby the respondent was appointed a Cashier, there was a clause for referring disputes to arbitration, that the appellant by a notice in writing dated 23rd June, 1961, terminated his services with effect from 1st July, 1961, by paying him 3 months salary in lieu of notice. The respondent handed over charge on 26th June, 1961, under protest and asked for reasons for the termination of his service, but the Bank refused to the enter into correspondence, as a consequence of which the respondent filed the suit to call for the agreement Exhibit A-3 and refer the dispute between him and the appellant to arbitration. The appellant through its Chief Agent, the 2nd appellant, contended that the respondent's suit is in effect a suit for specific performance of the agreement of service, which is prohibited under section 21 of the Special Relief Act, that clause 23 of the agreement Exhibit A-3 does not apply to the facts of the dispute because the question whether the respondent's services were properly terminated is not a dispute covered by the agreement, and that therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator and pass a decree in terms of the award.

(3.) In as much as we are called upon only to consider the question whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, call for the agreement and refer the dispute to arbitration, it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case. The trial Court framed several issues, of which issue 1 related to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the suit and issue 2 as to whether there is a dispute between the parties for the purpose of reference to arbitration as provided in clause 23 of the agreement of service. As we have already seen, the First Additional Chief Judge not only held that the Court has jurisdiction, but also that there is a dispute within the meaning of clause 23 of the agreement.