- (1.) The petitioner has challenged the order of the Courts below making the award dated 8.3.1981 as the rule of the Court by this revision petition.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner raised the four contentions : (i) that the award is a non-speaking and no reasons whatsoever have been given in the award; (ii) that the amount awarded in the award could only be awarded after the matter referred to the Arbitrator is determined. The Arbitrator must give first a finding that the termination is invalid and illegal and only then the amount of Rs. 25,000/- as damages could have been awarded; (iii) Since the arbitration proceedings continued for four years and no time was extended by the competent Court in terms of the Arbitration Act, the award given after the lapse of four years cannot be made a rule of the Court; and (iv) The Arbitrator did not have any jurisdiction to award interest after passing of the award. In the alternative, it is stated that interest of 12% cannot be awarded.
(3.) Succinctly, the facts stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to raise the aforesaid objections are that respondent Veenu Malik's services were terminated on 20.5.1974. She sought a reference with respect to the validity and legality of her termination to the Arbitrator in terms of Regulation 15 of Regulations to Government Service and Conduct of Teachers in non-Government Affiliated Colleges of Guru Nanak University Calendver, Volume II, 1974. The Arbitrator conducted the arbitration proceedings and parties continued to participate in them resulting the award dated 8.3.1981. She filed an application for making the award a rule of the Court on 4.4.1981. The petitioner raised various objections including the ones which are pressed now, as mentioned above. The Courts below finding no substance in the objections raised, dismissed the same and made the award as a rule of the Court.;