UNION OF INDIA Vs. N P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Union of India from the orders of A.N. Ray, J. refusing to set aside the award of the Arbitrators dated the 13th day of June, 1958. The Union of India made an application to set aside the award of the Arbitrators on a number of grounds and that application was dismissed by the learned Judge.

(2.) THE main argument on behalf of the Union of India in this appeal is that the award is bad on the face of it. It is also contended on behalf of the Union of India that the award contains erroneous decisions in law and in fact. THE award in this case is a long award running into 12 printed pages. It is argued on behalf of the Union of India that the award gives reasons which are erroneous.

(3.) THE 7th issue raises the question whether the Chief Mining Engineer or the Manager, Superintendent of Collieries or the G. C. A. or any authorised agent of the Union agreed on behalf of the Union to pay any extra charges. THE 10th issue relates to the question whether the Agreement dated the 26th August, 1952, constitutes a new agreement and prevents the respondents from making any claim after that date. THE 11th issue raises the question first whether in fact the respondent did any extra work and secondly whether the appellant enjoyed the benefit of such extra work and if so was the appellant liable to compensate for such extra work done. THE 12th issue raises the question whether the appellant was bound by the contract particularly mentioned in paragraph 15 of the statements of fact before the Arbitrators. THE 13th issue raises the question whether the appellant ratified the contract mentioned in the same paragraph of the statement of facts. THE 17th issue raised the question of Limitation, which it must be recorded here, Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for, the Union, definitely abandoned before us. THE 15th issue raises the question whether the respondent carried out the work in dispute under the faith that the alleged assurances given by the officers of the appellant were legal and binding and if such assurances were discovered to be void whether the appellant was bound to restore the benefits received by him.