ROHTAK DELHI TRANSPORT PRIVATE Vs. CH RISAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which has been placed before us for disposal owing to an order of reference made by my learned brother on 10th May 1962. In order to decide the points which require determination, the facts may be stated first.

(2.) THE petitioner, is a transport company and Manohar Lal was employed as a "driver by it. He was driving bus No. PNR 2034 on 26th June 1959 which was transporting passengers from Rohtak to Delhi. It appears that there was some quarrel near the Delhi traffic barrier between Manohar Lal and the checker of the company, Chaman Lal during the course of which the former is alleged to have given a slap to the latter. On a complaint an enquiry was held by Shri Hargopal singh Sawhney who was appointed for that purpose by the company. Manohar Lal was found guilty of misbehaviour towards the checker and also of obstructing him in the discharge of his duties. He was ordered to be dismissed from service, on 28th December 1959. An industrial dispute having arisen between Manohar Lal and the petitioner it was agreed that it should be referred to the arbitration of respondent No. 1 Ch. Risal Singh, a Pleader of Rohtak, under Section 10-A of the industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (hereinafter to be referred teas the Act ). The matter specifically referred was as follows: "whether Shri Manohar Lal who has since been dismissed after enquiry, is entitled to any compensation; and if so, to what amount?" the Arbitrator gave an award on 16th February, 1961 which was published in the government Gazette dated 17th March 1961. The relevant portion of this award may be reproduced :

(3.) IN paragraph 5 of the petition it was stated? that the award was given without recording any evidence. The grounds on which the award has been attacked are stated mainly in paragraph 6 and it is necessary to refer to only those which have been pressed before us. The first is that the Arbitrator went beyond the scope of the terms of reference as the only matter referred to him was as to whether respondent No. 2 was entitled to any compensation and if so, to what extent. He was never called upon to decide whether the inquiry held against respondent No. 2 as a result of which he was dismissed was proper or not. The second is that respondent No. 1 was a statutory Arbitrator and exercised quasi-judicial functions. He was expected to act in a quasi-judicial manner and give a judicial finding which he failed to do. It is not clear from the award as to how the figure of Rs. 2,700/awarded as compensation was arrived at by the Arbitrator and no basis has been disclosed for the Conclusions given in the award, with the result that there was arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. The reply of respondent No. 2 in respect of paragraph 5 was as follows: "paragraph 5 of the petition is admitted. The Arbitrator was under no obligation to record the evidence produced before him. " in reply to paragraph 6 it was staled that the Arbitrator had full power to decide the dispute in any manner he liked and that he had looked into all the relevant documents and heard the parties after receiving their respective pleadings. The award could not, therefore, be called arbitrary or capricious in any way. The position taken up in paragraph 10 of the written statement was that respondent no. 1 Could not be called a statutory Arbitrator nor was he subject to the supervisory power of the High Court.