- (1.) This arbitration appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st ­ Bokaro in Misc.(Arb.) Case No. 7 of 2004. The said order of the trial court is dated 19th July, 2013. By this order the learned trial court has dismissed the Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 7 of 2004, which was preferred by the present Appellant (who was the petitioner in the aforesaid Misc. Arbitration Case and respondent before the learned arbitrator). This Misc. (Arb.) case was preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award dated 12th January, 2004, passed by the learned Arbitrator, whereby the claim of the present appellant was partly accepted and the claim of the present respondent ( who was the claimant in the arbitration proceeding and respondent in the Misc. Arbitration Case No. 7 of 2004)was allowed.
(2.) Counsel appearing for the present appellant mainly raised the issue that the arbitrator, who was appointed by the present respondent, was an employee of the present respondent, viz. he was the Assistant General Manager in the respondent company when he was appointed the arbitrator and thereafter, he was elevated to the post of Dy. General Manager, and for the very reason that he was an employee of the present respondent, he could not have continued as an arbitrator. This argument was not accepted by the learned trial court, hence the order dated 19th July, 2013 passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 7 of 2004 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) Counsel for the respondent submitted that no such argument as aforesaid by the counsel for the present appellant was ever raised before the learned Arbitrator. Even otherwise also as per Section 12 and 13 of the Arbitrator and conciliation Act, 1996 grievances could have been ventilated by this appellant before the very same arbitrator. No objection was ever made before the learned Arbitrator and therefore, this case may not be entertained by this court.;