MANAGING DIRECTOR J AND K HANDICRAFTS JAMMU Vs. GOOD LUCK CARPETS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave is granted.

(2.) Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant has raised three points in support of this appeal:

(3.) We shall deal with the second point first. The learned Advocate General has placed before us the award and pointed out that the nature of the incentive contemplated by the scheme and the various items with regard to which decree was claimed by the respondent have been mentioned therein. It has been urged that according to the scheme the appellant was liable to pay to the respondent salary for a period of one year of one Craftsman as also rent for the same period of the centre in which the industry was run by the respondent. One of the items of the claim mentioned in the award is of Rupees 1,03,883.80 p. The details of Rs. 1,03,883.80 P. are to be found in the Claim Petition made by the respondent before the Arbitrator. Item No. (a) of the Claim Petition is for a sum of Rs. 69,897.60 p. as pay of Master Craftsman for one year and Item No. (b) is for a sum of Rs. 26,100.00 as rent of the six centres where the respondent started its business. The total amount of Item Nos. (a) and (b) comes to Rs. 95,997.60 p. It has been urged by the learned Advocate General that since in view of the scheme the appellant was liable to pay to the respondent by way of incentive only the amount covered by the aforesaid two items, the Arbitrator could have made an award with regard to a sum of Rs. 95,997.60 p. only.' According to him, the award with regard to the other itmes claimed by the respondent is beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator inasmuch as the Arbitrator derived his jurisdiction only from the reference and since the reference could be only with regard to the aforesaid two items, any amount awarded over and above these two items would apparently be beyond the scope of the reference.