Difference Between Arbitration And Adjudication

Hi, could anyone please highlight what exactly (if any) are the key points of technical difference between Compulsory Arbitration and Adjudication? Is there any technical/legal difference at all between these two terms, or is there no difference as such, and are they just another two different bookish terminologies for the same law? A detailed explanation would be really appreciated, please.

Thanks,
Brandon

Please follow the post by binubabu, which is available at the following link: https://www.citehr.com/91631-types-a...mportance.html

Compulsory Arbitration is a tool of Joint Consultative Machinery formed for the settlement of disputes of Central Government employees. It cannot be synonymous with Adjudication, the order of which is binding as a judicial order.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

As I understand, in the Indian context, Compulsory Arbitration stands for the redressal of disputes among government employees under the Joint Consultation Machinery. In the private sector, voluntary arbitration and adjudication are the mechanisms for settling disputes. A dispute can be referred to adjudication by the government if it finds that an industrial dispute exists. This is done when voluntary arbitration fails to settle the dispute, and when either or both parties to the dispute seek government intervention for adjudication. However, an employee or a group of employees can also directly refer a dispute to adjudication.

The order passed by arbitration is not judicial or quasi-judicial, and if not enforced, the award ceases to exist, whereas the award of adjudication will be binding on the parties.

Please try the following link. However, I am not sure whether the same is written in the Indian context: Types of arbitration MBA Notes on Types of arbitration.

Regards,
Madhu.T.K

Thank you, sir. So, as I understand, the award given under even compulsory arbitration is not binding on the parties? I thought that it was.

Regards,
Brandon