NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY v. SHEKHAR PAL SHARMA

1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed challenging the Arbitral Award dated 11.01.2019 passed by the Sole Arbitrator adjudicating the disputes that had arisen between the parties in relation to the contract for Specialists Services executed between the parties on 21.12.2015.

2. The petitioner had terminated the service of the respondent vide its notice dated 24.05.2018. This was the bone of contention before the Arbitrator with the respondent challenging the validity thereof.

3. The Arbitrator in the Impugned Award has set aside the termination notice, as being not based on correct fact. In reaching this conclusion, the Arbitrator has given the following reason:

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Office Orders dated 16.11.2016, 06.04.2017, 27.11.2017, 05.02.2018, 13.03.2018 and 13.04.2018 to contend that the respondent had not only failed to complete the three tasks assigned to him but as has been recorded in the Office Order dated 16.11.2016, had also failed to perform the work within the time granted. He submits that the Arbitrator has completely ignored these documents in holding that the reason for termination of services of the respondent was invalid.

5. I may first note the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the respondent to the maintainability of the present petition. Drawing specific reference to paragraph 12 of the Impugned Award, learned counsel for the respondent submits that before the Arbitrator the petitioner had placed reliance on various documents, specially the rejoinder filed by the respondent before the Arbitrator. The petitioner has not placed these documents on record, neither has the rejoinder been placed on record. He submits that in view of the order dated 31.10.2018 in OMP (COMM) 454/2018, titled as NHAI v. Roadways Solution India Private Ltd., wherein this Court held that the entire record of the arbitral proceedings has to be filed alongwith the petition under Section 34 of the Act, this petition is infact not maintainable. I find it indeed strange that the documents referred to by the petitioner are found missing in the documents filed with the petition. O.M.P. (COMM) 142/2019 Page 5

6. Even otherwise on merit, I find that the Arbitrator has placed reliance on the fact that in spite of repeated query, the officers of the petitioner could not point out how and in what manner the other works that are mentioned in the Office Order dated 13.03.2018 were assigned to the respondent. The Arbitrator further holds that out of the three tasks mentioned in the Office Order dated 16.11.2016, two had been completed satisfactorily by the respondent. Regarding the third task, the work was never handed over to the respondent. Other discrepancies which had been pointed out in the letter dated 13.02.2018 also relate to the work that had been assigned to one Mr.Gaurav Mishra, IT Manager, whose services had been terminated for non performance of the said work. In the petition filed by the petitioner, it is not asserted that these findings of the Arbitrator are incorrect in any manner. In the course of arguments also, counsel for the petitioner has not drawn my reference to any document which would show that the works which have been mentioned in the Office Order dated 13.03.2018 had infact, been assigned to the respondent.

7. In any case, these being findings of facts determined by the Arbitrator, which I do not find to be completely perverse or contrary to the record, the said findings cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its power under Section 34 of the Act.

8. I therefore, find no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed, with no order as to cost.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J APRIL 08, 2019