MULKH RAJ MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition the main ground of challenge regarding the continuance of respondent No. 4 as the Arbitrator is that he is not an Engineer Officer, as contemplated in the Arbitration Agreement. Reference is invited to Clause 70 of the terms and conditions of the Agreement between the parties which reads as under : "70. Arbitration - All disputes, between the parties to the contract (other than those for which the decision of the TFC or any other person is by the contract expressed to be final and binding) shall, after written notice by either party to the contract to the other of them, be referred to the sole arbitration of an Engineer Officer to be appointed by the authority mentioned in the tender document."

(2.) IT is contended by Mr. Mahajan that Mr. S. K. Rao, respondent No. 4, who was appointed as the Arbitrator by the Engineer -in -Chief, Army Headquarters, is not an Engineer Officer because he is only a Chief Surveyor of Works. In para 13 of the petition, averment to that effect is made. This averment has been refuted by the respondents in the objections filed by them in which it is stated that respondent No. 4 is an Engineering Graduate and that being Chief Surveyor of Works, he is performing the duties of a person relating to the execution of works, the planning, the advice etc. etc.

(3.) THE interpretation sought to be put by the petitioner upon the expression "Engineer Officers" is not correct. The term "Engineer Officers" has not been defined either in Arbitration Agreement or at any other place which can be relied upon by the writ petitioner and/or has been dated by him in support of his arguments. In the absence of a specific definition of this expression, one has to assign to the expression its meaning as would be available in common parlance, with reference to normal cognate expressions and on the basis of the concept of the expression, used generally and commonly. When one refers to a person as an "Engineer Officer", one obviously would have in mind the academic qualifications of the person and the duties being discharged by him with reference to the office that he may be holding. Looking to both the factors, and applying the same to the present case, one finds that respondent No. 4 is a qualified Civil Engineer and he is holding the office of Chief Surveyor of Works. The duties of this office are directly relateable to the planning, designing, execution, supervision etc. etc. of the works being carried out in the MES Department. For a person to be an Engineer Officer, it is not necessary that he must be involved in the actual and physical execution of the work alone. If an Engineer is not involved in the execution of the work at site, and is only concerned with its planning or designing while sitting in the office, he does not cease to be either an "Engineer" or an "Engineer Officer". Similarly, if a qualified Engineer, by reason of his official duties, acts as an Advisor, in matters of engineering alone, to the Head of the Institution, he also performs the duties of an Engineer. An Engineer, so long as he is discharging the functions relateable to his job, whether by involving himself in actual execution at site, by planning, designing or rendering advice or assistance, will remain an Engineer and if, he is in the category of "Officers", he can and should be called an "Engineer Officer".