UNION OF INDIA Vs. SMT. RAHANI DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1.2.1999 making the award rule of the Court. The judgment has been challenged on the following grounds :

(2.) The contention of Mr. Bhat, Sr. C.G.S.C. appearing for the appellant is that Sh. M.M.S. Parihar the sole Arbitrator had resigned vide his letter dated 15.12.1990 with effect from 1st Jan., 1991 on the ground that he was to superannuate on 31.10.1991. His resignation was accepted by the Engineer- in-Chief who appointed Brig. Y.W. Joshi as the sole Arbitrator vide letter dated 10.1.1991. Brigadier Parihar, therefore, according to the learned counsel had ceased to be the Arbitrator and had no authority to continue the arbitration proceedings. He also argued that reasonable opportunity to produce evidence was denied while rejecting the request. His further argument is that the award was made rule of the Court without examining its contents which was necessary to consider its legality or otherwise. These contentions have been repelled by Mr. P.C. Markanda appearing for the respondents that the Arbitrator had continued the proceedings in deference to this Court order dated 20.12.1990 passed in C.M.P. No. 125/1990 seeking his removal. Besides, the parties had also agreed to his continuation and even filed a joint application asking him to make the award by 30.7.1991. Regarding the opportunity to produce evidence his submission is that four years was a fairly long time to produce evidence. The argument that award was not considered by the learned Single Judge according to Mr. Markanda is not substantiated by the facts.

(3.) We may now consider the rival contention with reference to the record of the proceedings before the Arbitrator and the Court. It is an question of fact that the Arbitrator Sh. Parihar had tendered his resignation vide letter dated 15.12.1990 and desired to be relieved because he was to superannuate on 31.1.1991. It is also a fact that Engineer-in-Chief vide his letter dated 16.1.1991 accepted his resignation and appointed one Brigadier Y.W. Joshi as the sole Arbitrator. However, these facts could be establish by leading evidence which the appellant failed to produce. But assuming that these having not been disputed. the question is whether the award is invalid on this ground. The award is not invalid because-before the Arbitrator had tendered his resignation, the respondents had filed Arbitration Application No. 125 of 1990 for his removal. This application it appears was resisted by the appellant. This application was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20.12.1990 with the following direction :