D.D. CHAMPATIRAY Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sanganeria, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and submits, his client was contractor. Submission is, the Court below erred in modifying the award. That is not possible under sec. 34, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Hence, the order should be reversed in appeal.

(2.) Mr. Pattanaik, learned advocate appears on behalf of the employer and submits, there is nothing wrong with impugned order. There should not be interference in appeal.

(3.) Perused impugned order. It appears, in respect of claim nos. 7 and 8 in the reference, the arbitrator awarded Rs.38,160.00 to appellant. In modifying this severable part of the award, the Court below said, inter alia, as follows.