Manoj Kumar Sinha v. East Central Railway And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7434 of 2015 ====================================================== MANOJ KUMAR SINHA, SON OF LATE CHANDRIKA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF GUPTA MARKET, IN FRONT OF ANISABAD POST OFFICE, P.S. - GARDANIBAGH, P.O.-ANISABAD, DISTRICTPATNA(BIHAR). ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY HAVING ITS DIVISIONAL HEADQUARTERS AT HAJIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI (BIHAR) THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER.

2. GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT - VAISHALI (BIHAR).

3. CHIEF ENGINEER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, DISTRICTVAISHALI (BIHAR).

4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, P.O.- KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA(BIHAR).

5. SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (I), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR, P.O.-KHAGAUL, DISTRICT-PATNA(BIHAR).

6. ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (L), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, PATNA JUNCTION , DISTRICT-PATNA(BIHAR).

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raju Giri, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent No. :

Mr. A.K. Keshari, Sr. Panel Counsel Railway 1 to 6 (Railways) Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, Railway Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 02-01-2019 It is not in dispute that the contract in question contains an arbitration clause. The parties agree that on the face of said arbitration clause, the dispute in the present nature is required to go to an Arbitral Tribunal duly constituted in terms of the agreement.

Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that under the standard form agreement of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.7434 of 2015(3) dt.02-01-2019 2/3 Railways earlier the employee of the Railway happened to be the Arbitrator but now in view of the amendments in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act w.e.f. 23.10.2015, Section 12(5) read with Schedule VII, the employee of the Railway cannot be an Arbitrator.

In the opinion of this Court, since parties agree that there is an arbitration clause, resolution of disptue through an arbitral tribunal is already agreed between the parties, they have to either go for appointment of Arbitrator with mutual consent or will have to seek recourse to Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for appointment of an Arbitrator. As agreed, this writ application is rendered infructuous with liberty to the parties to avail their remedy before a duly constituted Arbitration Tribunal. In view of the earlier order dated 17.12.2018 passed by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, Mr. Raju Giri, learned counsel, has filed proposed name of an arbitrator. Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, learned counsel representing the Railways did not agree for the same. In the opinion of this Court, in the nature of order dictated above, this Court is not required to go into the issue of the appointment of an Arbitrator in the present dispute.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7434 of 2015(3) dt.02-01-2019 3/3 The writ application stands disposed off.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/Ved/- U