No 46931 of 1985
IN WP Nos
11361 62 of 1983 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
AK Ganguli and K Swami for the Petitioners
Shankar Ghosh section Padmanabhan KK Venugopal CS Vaidyanathan ATM Sampath P Choudhary SR Setia and SR Bhatt for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
There were disputes between the partners of the firm Balasubramania Foundry hereinafter called the firm  and several legal proceedings were taken in the courts of Coimbatore these ultimately came to this Court
This Court by an order dated 2nd of November 1982 referred the disputes to the Arbitrator
The order stated that the disputes were referred to the sole Arbitrator Justice KS Palaniaswamy failing him Justice CJR Paul and the respective parties including the firm were directed to file their 854 joint memos in all the courts where the suitsproceedings were pending before the Arbitrator
The Arbitrator was directed1 to proceed in accordance with the 
In order to complete the narration there was an application for appointment of Receiver which was directed to be pro ceeded with in the trial court
This Court however by the said order directed the trial court to dispose of that application
By the said order as mentioned hereinbefore in the absence of Justice KS Palaniaswamy Justice CJR Paul duly heard and considered the matter and published the award on 3rd April 1985
It is claimed by Mr Ghosh appearing on behalf of respondent No 1 as well as Mr Venugopal appearing on behalf of other respondents supporting that the said award be made a rule of the court and the judgment in terms of the said award be passed
It may be mentioned that the Coimba tore District Podu Thozillar Munnetra Samgam represented by its Secretary being a union of the workers filed writ peti tions in this Court being writ petitions Nos 11361 62 of 1983
Later on another special leave petition being special leave petition No 2271 of 1983 was filed by the firm against the order of the High Court confirming the order of appointment of Receiver of the firm
In those proceedings the Court was pleased to pass an order on 17th of February 1984 that all the claims of the workers for their past dues would be referred for arbitration to the Arbitrator and considered by him
On 27th of July 1984 this Court was pleased to refer the money claims of one Velmurugan Factory and the money claims of the workers who were members of the Coimbatore District Engineering and General Workers Union to the Arbitrator for adjudicating by arbitration
The Arbitrator has duly filed the award dated 3rd April 1985 in this Court under section 141 of the  A Rangaswamy the petitioner herein for whom Mr Gan guly is appearing has filed an affidavit alleging that the arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct and there were errors which were amenable to corrections by this Court
It was contended on behalf of the workers also that their claims had not been fully protected
Mr Sampath appearing on their behalf has contended that the claims of the workers would amount to about rupees seven lakhs while provision had been made only for rupees three lakhs and even then there was not sufficient provision
The workers gratuity it was contended would come to about rupees seven lakhs while the Arbitrator had really estimated 855 erroneously rupees four lakhs and provisions had been made only for Rs310000 which according to Mr Sampath have been further diminished by payments made by the Receiver in the meantime
There is also an application on behalf of the workers  union on these grounds
It appears however that this objection on behalf of the workers on ground of imperfect protection of workers was under a misconception on behalf of the respondents
It was stated and brought before us that in the last two years there had been sufficient profit to cover the claims of the workers
Indeed it appears that of the 27 workers whose claims had to be settled on account of gratuity 14 had received the same and a document indicating the payments to them was sought to be filed before us
We are satisfied that sufficient provisions have been made for the existing li abilities of the workers and for any further contingencies in respect of the workers  claims
It cannot be said there fore that the award of the Arbitrator is incomplete and left undetermined this dispute
The right to gratuity has been recognised and provision for the same has been made
The respondents Nos 2 3 and 5 pleaded before us through counsel that they had no objection to the award being made the rule of the court
The respondent No I as mentioned hereinbefore is arguing that the award be made the rule of the court
Respondent No 4 is also supporting that claim
It is only the petitioner A Rangaswamy who is the only party opposing the award
It was submitted by Mr Ganguly in support of his objection that the Arbitrator while holding that the lease in favour of the firm was bad had awarded substantial sum on the basis of the lease
It was further submitted that the Arbitrator while noting the reasons and recording the formal award had applied a reasoning altogeth er unconnected with the merits of the controversy which amounted to legal misconduct
It was further alleged that the award was inconsistent
In those circumstances it was submitted that the award so far as it was against the appli cant
A Rangaswami should be set aside
It was submitted that in spite of the alleged lapses in the illegal leases it was Palaniappan who was continuing to manage the business sometimes as the Managing Partner of the firm and at other times as the proprietor or partner of the lessee company and recognition and rewarding him on that basis was perverse
It was further submitted that reliance placed on Exhibit A 46 for the purpose of allotting the articles was perverse and a grave error apparent on the face of the record
It was submitted that the Arbitrator committed a grave error in rejecting the claim of the applicant for a sum of Rs392794011 which was due from Palaniappan and Doraiswa my as suppressed profits
It was submitted by Mr Ganguly 856 that at least rupees nine lakhs should have been left out in item No 9
This was not duly noted
On the other hand it was urged that the alleged errors were not amenable to be corrected in this application by this Court
Mr Ganguly submitted that on the whole the award was wholly inequita ble
The law on this aspect is however settled
In Union of India vs AL Rallia Ram   this Court reiterated that in order to make arbitration effective and the awards enforceable machinery was devised by the Arbi tration Act for lending the assistance of the ordinary courts
The Court was also entrusted with the power to modify or correct the award on the ground of imperfect form or clerical errors or decision on questions not referred which were severable from those referred
The Court had also power to remit the award when it had left some matters referred undetermined or when the award was indefinite where the objection to the legality of the award was appar ent on the face of the award
The Court might also set aside an award on the ground of corruption or misconduct of the  arbitrator or that a party had been guilty of fraudulent concealment or wilful deception
But the Court could not interfere with the award if otherwise proper on the ground that the decision appeared to it to be erroneous
The award of the arbitrator was ordinarily final and conclusive unless a contrary intention was disclosed by the agreement
The award was the decision of a domestic tribunal chosen by the parties and the civil courts which were entrusted with the power to facilitate arbitration and to effectuate the awards could not exercise appellate powers over the deci sion
Wrong or right the decision was binding if it be reached fairly after giving adequate opportunity to the parties to place their grievances in the manner provided by the arbitration agreement
This Court reiterated in the said decision that it was now firmly established that an award was bad on the ground of error of law on the face of it when in the award itself or in a document actually incorpo rated in it there was found some legal proposition which was the basis of the award and which was erroneous
This view had been enunciated  by the Judicial Committee in Champsey Bhara and Company vs Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd 1932 LR 50 IA 324
This view was again reiterated and emphasised by this Court in Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika vs Ms Narain Das Hari  where Ray J as the learned Chief Justice then was observed at page 30 of the report relying on Champsey Bhara s case supra an error of law on the face of the award meant that one could find in the award or in a document actually incorporated thereto as for instance a note appended by the arbi 857 trator stating the reasons for his judgment some legal proposition which was the basis of the award and which one can say is erroneous
 In the instant case there is no legal proposition either in the award or in any document annexed with the award which was erroneous
In Allen Berry and Co P Ltd vs Union of India New Delhi   this Court reiterated that the principle was that an award could only be set aside where there is an error on its face
In the instant case the alleged mistakes or alleged errors if there be any of which Mr Ganguly made grievances are mistakes of fact if at all
Mr Ganguly s grievances have a ring of similarity with the grievances which were agitated before this Court in Hindustan Tea Co vs K Sashikant Co and another  and this Court reit erated that it was an error of law and not mistake of fact committed by the arbitrator which was justiciable in the application before the court
It was an error of law and not mistake of fact committed by the arbitrator which was amena ble to corrections by this Court
The grievances of Mr Ganguly s client even if true which as at present advised we are not inclined to accept do not amount to error appar ent on the face of the record
In the aforesaid view of the matter we are unable to sustain the objections to the award
There will therefore be judgment in terms of the award there will no interim interest
There will however be interest on judgment at 9
The objections are dismissed and the workers  objections are disposed of by stating that there are sufficient provi sions in the award to meet the claim of the gratuity of the workers and they should have the right to be met out of the award
In that view of the matter the award is made the rule of the Court and the judgment be in terms of the award
No order as to costs
NPV Petitions dis posed of


Summary:
There were disputes between the partners of the respond ent firm and several legal proceedings were taken in the courts below which ultimately came to this Court
This Court by an order dated 2nd of November 1982 referred the disputes to an Arbitrator
An application for appointment of Receiver was also directed to be disposed of by the trial court
The Arbitrator duly filed the award dated 3rd of April 1985 in this Court under Section 141 of the 
The petitioner in the special leave petitions filed an affidavit alleging that the Arbitrator was guilty of legal misconduct and that there were errors which were amenable to correction by this Court that the award was inconsistent and therefore the award should be set aside so far as it was against the applicant
On behalf of the Respondent Workers an application was filed and it was contended that their claims have not been fully protected and that the workers  claim on account of gratuity would come to about Rs7 lakhs while the Arbitrator had estimated it erroneously at Rs4 lakhs and had also made no sufficient provision in respect thereof
Disposing of the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions the Court HELD There is no legal proposition either in the award or in any document annexed therewith which was erroneous
The alleged mistake or alleged errors if there be any of which grievances are made are mistakes of fact if at all
The grievances even if true do not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record
857A B D 853 Sufficient provisions have been made in the award for the existing liabilities of the workers and for any further contingencies is respect of their claims
The right of gratuity has been recognised
It cannot therefore be said that the award of the arbitrator is left incomplete and this dispute left undetermined
855C D The objection to the award cannot be sustained
There will therefore be judgment in terms of the award
There will be no interim interest
There will however be inter est on judgment at 9
857E Union of India vs AL Raffia Ram   Champsey Bhara and Company vs Jivraj Balloo Spinning and Weaving Company Ltd 1932 LR 50 IA 324 Kanpur Nagar Mahapalika vs Ms Narain Das Haribansh  Allen Berry and Co P Ltd vs Union of India New Delhi  and Hindustan Tea Co vs K Sashikant Co and another  referred to