Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.C. Lahoti, C.J.I., Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Union of India (UOI) - Appellants
Vs.
Concrete Products and Construction Company - Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.18244-18245/2004 and Civil Appeal No. ... of 2005 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 18244-18245 of 2004)
Decided On: 02.05.2005
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals stand disposed of in the above said terms.
3. Leave granted.
4. Pursuant to the order dated 11th April, 2005, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellants submits that the Railways have some reservation about the matter being referred to an independent arbitrator in view of the arbitration clause; and, further because this may become a precedent. We make it clear that our opinion as expressed in the order dated 11th April, 2005 to refer the matter for adjudication by an independent arbitrator, preferably a retired Judge, was formed on the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases and, therefore, cannot be a precedent to be followed in other cases.
5. We direct that the disputes between the parties arising for decision in these matters be referred for adjudication by an Arbitral Tribunal consisting solely of Mr. Justice K. Venkataswami, a former Judge of this Court.
6. The learned Arbitrator would appoint his reasonable fee and expenses.
7. The parties would be at liberty to seek interim relief from the sole Arbitrator.
8. The impugned Judgments of the High Court are set aside. The appeals stand disposed of in the above said terms.
Disposed off.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
