GOPI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This misc. appeal under Sec. 39(vi) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1940 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1940') has been filed against the judgment and decree dt. 11.4.1991 passed by the Addl. District Judge No. 1, Ajmer (hereinafter 'the trial Court') whereby the objection of the claimant-appellant to the award dt. 28.12.1984 passed by the Sole Arbitrator were dismissed and the application under section 17 of the Act of 1940 filed by the respondent Central Public Works Department allowed making the award in issue the rule of the Court and directing that a decree be drawn in terms thereof.

(2.) The time for pronouncing the award extended on various occasions. The Arbitrator fixed the date of hearing in the matter on 4.12.1984 at Delhi vide his letter dt. 4.8.1984 and also required the appellant-claimant's consent for enlargement of time upto 31.12.1984 for making and the publishing award. The appellant telegraphically sought adjournment on the said date i.e. 4.12.1984 as he was allegedly suffering from fever arid sent a confirmatory letter on 4.12.1984 to the same effect. The Arbitrator without considering the request of the appellant for adjournment is stated to proceed ex-parte and without further intimation made and signed the award on 28.12.1984. Thereunder the Arbitrator dismissed the claims of the appellant and allowed the respondent railways counter claims to an extent of Rs. 19961.42 (Rupees Nineteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty One and Paisa Forty Two). In the circumstances the appellant submitted an application under Sec. 30 read with Sec. 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the Court of District Judge, Ajmer challenging the award dt. 28.12.1984. Vide order dt. 11.4.1991 the application was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(3.) I find no force in the contention of Mr. Ranjan, Sr. Counsel that the Arbitrator ought to have necessarily adjourned the matter on request for adjournment vide telegram dt. 3.12.1984 followed by the letter to the same effect on 4.12.1984 pleading inability to appear on 4.12.1984 because of illness. In my considered opinion a mere request for adjournment on the ground of illness without any supporting document/prescription was/is of no avail. It is not the case of the appellant-claimant that any such document of illness was produced before the Arbitrator even along with the letter dt. 4.12.1984. The telegram dt. 3.12.1984 as also the letter dt. 4.12.1984 are not stated to have contained the nature of illness suffered as alleged by the claimant at the relevant time. Adjournments are matter of discretion of the Arbitration and unless the discretion is shown to have been unjustly and unfairly exercised in the facts of a case it cannot constitute a denial of natural justice and bring it within the scope of misconduct Secs. 33 and 34 of the Act of 1940. From the facts on record such does not appear to be in the present case. No misconduct can thus be attributed to the Arbitrator solely in the circumstances of his having refused the adjournment as sought by the claimant-appellant, Sr. Counsel's contention and proceeded thereafter ex parte to pronounce the award. The award being vitiated by the denial of principles of natural justice and consequent misconduct is without force and is rejected.