- (1.) DISPUTE between the appellants and the respondents had arisen regarding payment of electricity consumption bills. For alleged theft of electricity, penalty was imposed upon the respondents by officials of the appellant. Matter was referred to an Arbitrator, who was none other than a very senior serving officer of the appellants (Superintending Engineer).
(2.) AFTER hearing the parties and looking into the records, the Arbitrator, ordered that the penalty be imposed, by taking supply of electricity at the rate of four hours per day. Neither before the Court below nor before this Court, any evidence has been shown, to say that the electricity supply, during those days, was more than four hours per day. Counsel for the appellants has failed to show that the Arbitrator has mis-conducted or that the award made is beyond the terms of the reference made. No ground is made out, for setting aside the award, as envisaged under the provisions of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Order passed is perfectly justified. As the appeal is being dismissed on merits, there is no necessity to deal with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal dismissed.;