JUDGMENT :

T.S. Sivagnanam, J.

O.S.A. No. 397 of 2018

1. This Appeal by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway is directed against the order in O.A. No. 650 of 2018 dated 24.09.2018 in an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after 'the Act').

2. The respondent in the said application prayed for an order of interim injunction to restrain the appellant from interfering with their right to continue the work of Mechanised cleaning of primary/secondary maintenance Trains, cleaning of depot premises covering 39,000 Sq. Mts. and on-board house keeping services in certain trains at Coimbatore Coaching Depot for a period of 4 years granted to the respondent vide Letter of Acceptance (herein after referred to as 'LoA') dated 02.04.2018.

3. The learned Single Bench by the impugned order allowed the application and issued other directions as well. The operative portion of the order reads as follows:

“(i) Ensure that the applicant is given atleast 21 days time to get ready to commence the work from the date of receipt of this order unless the applicant is able to mobilise men and machine before the said date.

(ii) Ensure smooth handing over of the work to the applicant both in letter and spirit without any deviation and without any inconvenience and disruption of the service as the work involves essential railway service connected with cleanliness for the convenience of the public.

(iii) Applicant shall furnish Bank Guarantee to the respondent within 21 days time after correcting the Applicant shall correct the defects pointed out in letter dated 29.06.2018 of the respondent.

(iv) If dispute persist between the parties after the work is handed over to the applicant, the respondent may inform the applicant about the same and obtain consent for appointment of arbitrators to resolve the dispute between them.

(v) In case, of reference of dispute for arbitration after the work is handed over to the applicant, the arbitral Tribunal shall decide the right of the parties.

(vi) It is made clear that under no circumstances, the respondent shall frustrate the relief granted herein to the applicant.”

4. The Railway administration being aggrieved by such order is before us by way of this appeal. At the time when the appeal was entertained, the Court granted an interim order against which the respondent preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Civil) No. 28674 of 2018 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 07.12.2018 pointed out that the impugned order in the Special Leave Petition is an interlocutory order and therefore they are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. However, it was observed that the High Court should expeditiously dispose of O.S.A. No. 397 of 2018. Further there was an observation that the High Court will decide the appeal on its own merit uninfluenced by the observation made in the interlocutory order dated 07.12.2018.

5. The appeal was listed before us on 12.03.2019 and the Court had pointed out to the learned counsel on either side that they may advance arguments on the main appeals at the earliest. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the appeal was listed for final hearing today (13.03.2019).

6. Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, learned Standing Counsel for the Railway Administration submitted that the respondent having not challenged the termination notice dated 04.07.2018, cannot maintain an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking an interim protection to continue the contract which was never commenced by the respondent. Further, it is submitted that the finding rendered by the learned Single Bench that the existing contractor was already terminated is factually incorrect as show-cause notice alone was issued on 15.02.2018 proposing to terminate the existing contractor and no final order was passed and in the meantime the