This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal, challenging the award passed by the second respondent herein, the sole Arbitrator, dated 30.7.2003.

2. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed Manager (Marketing and Customer Service) by the first respondent company as per the appointment order: dated 30.11.2000 and he also joined the service with effect from 1. 2001. As per the clauses of appointment order, he was put on probation up to the last date of the month in which he completed six months service and during the probation period, his services can be terminated without assigning any reason. The probation is lable to be extended at the discretion of the management. It is also stated that the employment is terminable by one month notice or with one month salary in lieu of such notice. The petitioner was directed to execute an agreement on 12. 2000, by which the first respondent company has agreed to sponsor him for a training on Techlink Products conducted by Techlink Storage Engineering Private Limited, commencing from 12. 2001 to 13. 2001.

2(a) The petitioner is stated to have completed the said training in Singapore and returned to Chennai in April 2001. It is stated that the petitioner had developed some physical pain in his shoulders due to cervical spondylitis and he was advised to take rest, It was in these circumstances, he was compelled to resign from his employment on medical grounds. The petitioner has submitted his resignation with effect from 6. 2001. The first respondent has directed the petitioner to pay liquidated damages of Rs. 1,16,643/-. As per terms of agreement-Subsequently, on 8. 2001, the first respondent through legal notice called upon the petitioner to pay the above sum, for which the petitioner gave a reply through his counsel on 18. 2001, stating that since he was medically unfit to continue his employment, he submitted his resignation during the period of probation and therefore, there is no question of damages.

2(b) The first respondent, as per the terms, of agreement dated 12. 2000, has appointed the second respondent as sole Arbitrator. The petitioner has filed his counter before the Arbitrator stating that the claim petition filed by the Deputy General Manager (HR) and Business Excellence on behalf of the first respondent mot maintainable since ha resigned during the period of probation on medical grounds and therefore there is no question of payment of liquidated damages. However, the plea of maintainability for want of proper authorization to Deputy General Manager was raised during evidence naci argument before the Arbitrator. It is the complaint of the petitioner that the second respondent Arbitrator has not taken note of the maintainability plea raised against the claim petition filed by the first respondent, but passed the award dated 30.7.2003, directing him to pay a sum of Rs. 1,16,643/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 6. 2001.

2(c) The award is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Deputy General Manager who filed the claim on behalf of the first respondent was not authorized by the first respondent company by a duly passed resolution, and therefore, the claim petition is not maintainable, that the said Deputy General Manager is not authorized to maintain the dispute. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Swadharma Swarajya Sangha rep. by its Director Mrs. Lalitha Rathnam, Madras-1 v. Indian Commerce and Industrial Company Pvt., Ltd., having its Registered Office at No. 29, Broadway, Madras-1 (1998) 1 MLJ 724 : (1998) 1 LW 203 and stated that he was not authorized by the Board of Directors by way of resolution and therefore, he cannot file the claim on behalf of the company, and that within the period of probation viz., six months from the date of joining, the petitioner became medically unfit and the resignation was due to that reason and therefore, the pay