RAJENDRA KUMAR SINGHA Vs. GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge. 2nd Court, Howrah dated 30th April, 2010 passed in Misc. Appeal No.73 of 2008. We fail to understand why this matter has been nomenclatured as Misc. Appeal, as it was a proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the said Act). We, therefore, desire that the learned Additional District Judge will examine this aspect, at a later stage of the proceedings whether this type of nomenclature is permissible under the law or not. The Railway authorities, who are the respondents before us, being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dated 16th January, 2008, filed an application under section 34 of the said Act on various grounds. However, substance of such grievance is that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has exceeded jurisdiction while making the award on the claim of reimbursement of revised rate of wages, claimed to have been paid by the appellant.

(2.) The short fact leading to initiating the arbitration proceedings and also that of before the learned trial Judge and the appeal before us, is as follows.

(3.) By an agreement in writing, the appellant before us, agreed to render services as contractor of loading and unloading parcel consignments of various customers at two Railway stations viz. Serampore and Seoraphuli. At the time of entering into the agreement, the rate of wages to be paid by the appellant was prescribed; however, according to the appellant this rate was changeable and variable from time to time, as per clause 14 of the agreement.