SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(SC) 1213

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ARUN MISHRA, JJ.
M/S MASTER TOURS AND TRAVELS – APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN, SHRI AMARNATH JISHRINE BOARD AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO.14620 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP ( C) NO. 28720 of 2014)
Decided On : 15-12-2015

IMPORTANT POINT
Industrial dispute can be referred to arbitration.

Headnote:Labour and Industrial Law – Industrial dispute – Reference to arbitration in terms of Clause 13 of Work Order – In view of long pendency of dispute, Counsel for appellant submits that appellant may be permitted to invoke provision for adjudication before Chief Executive Officer with appellant's participation and same may be disposed of in a time bound manner – There is no reason to deny request, accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows – Appellant is free to make a comprehensive representation raising all disputes before Chief Executive Officer of Respondent. (Paras 4 to 6)

       (2014) 2 SCC 201 – Relied.

       Facts of Case:

       Point in issue is whether in terms of Clause 13 of Work Order, dispute raised by appellant should be referred to Arbitration.

       Findings of Court:

       Appellant is free to make a comprehensive representation raising all disputes before Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.1, within a period of four weeks from today. Chief Executive Officer shall look into same and after hearing appellant take a final decision in the matter within another six weeks.

       Result : Appeal disposed of with observations.

       

JUDGMENT

KURIAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The short question is whether in terms of Clause 13 of the Work Order, the dispute raised by the appellant should be referred to the Arbitration. The Clause 13 of the Work Order reads as follows:

“In case of any dispute the matter shall be referred to the Chief Executive Officer – Shri Amarnathji Shrine Board, whose decision in the matter shall be final.”

3. Though learned Counsel for the appellant tried to convince that the aforesaid Clause has to be read as an Arbitration Clause for settling the disputes between the parties, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in State of Punjab and Others Vs. Dina Nath, (2007) 5 SCC 28, we are unable to appreciate the contention in view of the subsequent decision of a three Judge Bench of this Court in P. Dasaratharama Reddy Complex Vs. Government of Karnataka and Another, (2014) 2 SCC 201.

4. Be that as it may, in view of the long pendency of the dispute, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant may be permitted to invoke the provision for adjudication before the Chief Executive Officer with the appellant's participation and the same may be disposed of in a time bound manner.

5. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, we see no reason to deny the request, accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as follows.

6. The appellant is free to make a comprehensive representation raising all the disputes before the Chief Executive Officer of Respondent No.1, within a period of four weeks from today. The Chief Executive Officer shall look into the same and after hearing the appellant take a final decision in the matter within another six weeks.

No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top