CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Sachin Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the respondent.
Introduction
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. By way of an instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has moved this Court to set aside the order dated 08.07.2019, Annexure P-4, passed by the learned District Judge Gurugram, whereby the petitioner's application for the reference of the dispute to an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act"), was rejected.
Background of the Case
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent was appointed as a Primary Teacher (PRT) Music for a few months in September 2005. He was confirmed, and a contract of service dated 22.03.2007, Annexure P-2, was entered into between the parties. He submits that the respondent was promoted as TGT on 02.04.2007 and was confirmed a year later. However, the post was discontinued due to an insufficient number of students, and his service was terminated via a letter dated 25.01.2019 by paying him three months' salary in lieu of the notice period. He submits that the respondent challenged the order before the District Judge, Gurugram, who has been designated as an Education Tribunal in terms of the notification dated 07.05.2013 issued under the directions of the Supreme Court in TMA Pai Foundation and others versus State of Karnataka and others (2002) 8 SCC 481. Counsel submits that as the contract of service contained an arbitration clause, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was filed, which after contest has been dismissed via the order impugned herein. While making a reference to the judgment in Pravin Electricals Private Limited Versus Galaxy Infra and Engineering Private Limited (2021) 5 SCC 671, counsel has contended that the tribunal has to restrict itself to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement while considering the application under Section 8, ibid, and the tribunal has gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that there was no mutual agreement between the parties. It is also his submission that the tribunal has erred in placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s Scon Contracts versus Neena Dhingra 2007 (30) RCR (Civil) 853, which dealt with a matter where the parties had not entered into a written agreement.
Arguments by the Respondent
Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has questioned the maintainability of the petition by inviting the attention of the Court to Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act and submits that the instant revision petition is not maintainable. Referring to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, he has urged that the Education Tribunal is not a "judicial authority" within the purview of the statutory provision as it does not act judicially or exercise judicial power. Reference has also been made by him to Section 2 (3) of the Arbitration Act, which provides that the provisions of the Arbitration Act shall not affect any law for the time being enforced by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration.
Court's Consideration
I have considered the rival submissions of counsel for the parties.
It is apposite to notice Section 37 (1) of the Arbitration Act, which is reproduced hereunder:
"37 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from the following orders (and from no others) to the Court authorized by law to hear appeals from original decrees of the Court passing the order, namely:- (a) refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8; (b) granting or refusing to grant any measure under section 9; (c) setting aside or refusing to set aside an arbitral award under section 34."
Arbitration Act is a special statute. Appeals under the Act can only be entertained by the Courts against the orders specifically mentioned in Section 37, ibid, and from no others. Examining the scheme of the Act, the Supreme Court in Chintels India Limited vs. Bhayana Builders Private Limited (2021) 4 SCC 602, has held that insofar as Section 37 (1) (a) is concerned, where a party is referred to arbitration under Section 8, ibid, no appeal lies. This is for the reason that the effect of such an order is that the parties must go to arbitration. It being left to the Arbitrator to decide the preliminary points under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act, which will then become the subject matter of appeal under Section 37 (2) (a) or the subject matter of grounds to set aside under Section 34 ibid an arbitral award ultimately made. Insofar as an order refusing the parties to arbitration under Section 8 ibid is concerned, it has to be passed on a prima facie examination of the arbitration agreement, and such an order is appealable under Section 37 (1) (a) of the Arbitration Act. As the statute specifically provides for the remedy of an appeal against an order rejecting an application under Section 8, ibid, the instant revision petition is not maintainable.
Without examining the legality of the impugned order on merits, the instant revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy available to it in accordance with the law.
Query on Order CR 5221 of 2019
R/S/M, Good afternoon kindly tell given up order CR 5221 of 2019 DATE 28-05-2024 is in whose favor of petitioner or respondent, and if this order can be submitted in another service matter in which the same arbitration sec 8 Application is dismissed by the Educational Tribunal clause, then this order can work vacate stay in another service matter. Thanks