1. The present application under article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against an order passed by an arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1996 Act”).

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that despite the availability of a remedy by way of an appeal under Section 37 of the 1996 Act, the present application has been preferred seeking judicial review in view of the impugned order being patently perverse.

3. It is contended that while the arbitrator was appointed under Section 11 of the 1996 Act for the specific purpose of deciding a dispute relating to the claim of compensation of the opposite party, while deciding the application under Section 17 of the 1996 Act, a separate departmental proceedings, having no nexus or connection with the arbitration clause or the arb