- (1.) The Petitioner challenges the award on the ground that it was made ex parte without affording the Petitioner an opportunity and made at a time when the arbitrator did not have any jurisdiction to continue with the reference. Several judgments have been cited by the Petitioner, some relevant in the context and others quite utterly irrelevant.
(2.) The Respondent is not represented even at the second call. There is, however, an affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent to ward off the challenge to the award made by a departmental arbitrator.
(3.) The Petitioner refers to the minutes of the fourth meeting held before the arbitrator on December 5, 1996, a copy whereof appears at page 28 (Annexure-B) of the affidavit-in-opposition. The minutes record that Advocate representing the railways was present and the claimant was also represented by Advocate. Point 6 of the minutes records as follows: 6.0 Both the parties agreed to extend the time for publication of award for another four, months.;