- (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. The relevant arbitration clause governing the matter reads as under :- "If any question, difference or objection whatsoever shall arise in any way connected with or arising out of this instrument the meaning or operation of any part thereof or the rights, duties or liabilities of either party, then save in so far as decision of any such matter is hereinbefore provided for and has been so decided every such matter including whether its decision has been otherwise provided for and/or whether it has been finally decided accordingly, or whether the contract should be terminated or has been rightly terminated and as regards the right and obligations of the parties as the result of such termination shall be referred for arbitration to the SE, H.S. A. M. B. within 180 days of the date of final measurement and its decision shall be final and binding and where the matter involves a claim for or the payment or recovery or deduction of money, only the amount, if any, awarded in such arbitration shall be recoverable in respect of the matter so referred. If the matter is not referred to arbitration within the specified period, all the rights and claims under the contract shall be deemed to have been forfeited and absolutely barred."
(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.;