KRISHAN LAL Vs. HARYANA S A M BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHERE the appointment of an arbitrator is by designation, is the arbitrator so appointed divested of his jurisdiction to act as such on his ceasing to hold the post, whether by transfer, retirement, resignation or otherwise. This is the point that falls for determination in this appeal.

(2.) THE matter raised here is essentially one of interpretation of the arbitration clause as it is open to the parties to provide that the arbitrator (appointed by virtue of the office he holds) must, at all times, during the arbitration proceedings, be one holding the particular post or that it would suffice if he held it at the time of the reference of the dispute to arbitration.

(3.) THE appointment of the arbitrator was thus by designation, namely, Superintending Engineer of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). At the time of the reference of the present disputes to arbitration, the Superintending Engineer concerned was Shri D.P. Gupta. THE impugned award by him in the case of the appellant Tara Chand is of April 17, 1984 and in the case of the other appellant-Krishan Lal of April 27, 1984. THE record shows that while proceeding on leave, he relinquished charge of this post on Jan. 16, 1984, Later, by the order exhibit p/6 of April 4, 1984, he was reverted to his parent department, though by the subsequent order exhibit p/7 of May 25, 1984, he was posted back as Superintending Engineer of the Board. THE fact, however, remains that the impugned awards of April 17 and 27,1984, were rendered by Shri D. P. Gupta, when he had ceased to hold the post of Superintending Engineer of the Board. THE contention thus raised on behalf of the Board and which prevailed with the trial court being that on his relinquishing charge of the post of Superintending Engineer - Shri D. P. Gupta, was not competent to proceed with the arbitration and the impugned awards were, therefore, without jurisdiction.