Judgment

A. K. SARKAR, J. : This appeal arises out of a proceedings for filing an award in Court and obtaining a judgment thereon.

2. The award was made in respect of disputes between the appellant, a professor of the respondent, the University of Delhi, and the respondent. The dispute originally started many years ago and with the passage of time, increased in volume. A narrative of the disputes is necessary for the proper appreciation of the question arising in this appeal and this we now proceed to give.

3. On 10-5-1944, the appellant was appointed Professor of Chemistry by the respondent. In August, 1948, the Government of India appears to have sanctioned a scheme called the Selection Grade for a higher grade of pay for certain professors. The appellant claimed to be entitled to the benefit of this scheme but it was not given to him by the respondent. This was the first dispute between the parties. In March 1949 another professor, Dr. Seshadri, was appointed by the respondent the Head of its Department of Chemistry. The appellant contended that he was the Head of the Department and had been wrongfully superseded by the appointment of Dr. Seshadri as the Head. This gave rise to another dispute. The appellant s case is that he tried to get this dispute solved by arbitration under the provisions of the Delhi University Act, 1922, but was unable to do so owing to the obstructive attitude of the University authorities, and was therefore, on 18-10-1949, forced to file a suit for a declaration that his removal from his position of the Head of the Department of Chemistry was illegal. The respondent in its turn also had certain complaints against the appellant for misconduct of more or less serious character into the details of which it is not necessary to enter. It appears to have been agreed between the parties in October 1950 that the mutual grievances would be investigated by Sir S. Vardachariar and Bakshi Sir Tek Chand and their decision was to be accepted as final and binding. In view of this agreement the appellant withdrew his aforesaid suit on 3-11-1950. The investigation was thereafter held and a report submitted on 1-3-1951, which appears to have gone substantially against the appellant. The appellant contended that the investigation had not been fairly held and that the report was for this and other reasons defective and not binding on him. He actually made an application on 26-3-1951 to the Sub-Judge, Delhi, under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, for a declaration that there was no arbitration agreement and hence the two references had no jurisdiction to act or to make an award and in the alternative, if there was an award, for an order setting it aside. While this application was pending, the Executive Council of the respondent passed a resolution on 26-4-1951 terminating the appellant s service as a professor of the University in view of the findings against him in the report of the investigators. On 11-2-1952, the Sub-Judge, Delhi, dismissed the application under section 33 on the ground that the agreement as to the investigation by Sir S. Vadachariar, and Bakshi Sir Tek Chand of the mutual grievances was not a submission to arbitration and therefore no application under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act lay. An appeal to the High Court was dismissed on 22-4-1953 for the same reason.

4. What we have stated so far gives the history of the disputes between the parties. We now proceeded to the events with which we are immediately concerned in this appeal.

5. On 28-4-1953, the appellant wrote a letter to the respondent claiming under the provisions of Sec. 45 of the Delhi University Act an arbitration with regard to various disputes mentioned in it. That section is in these terms : Section 45.

Any dispute arising out of a contract between the University and any officer or teacher of the University shall, on the request of the officer of teacher concerned, be referred to a Tribunal of Arbitration consisting of one member app