:aammnigwm x J IN THE HIGH CUURT OJ: JLJDyvATUQg T J-‘x‘sTPWRg {vii ( c §$§eaé no O ) ; J M Fr $?¢//Lmv\ Ari$ing Out of Order passed Uhder Section 34 of the 'Arbitrati and Conciliation Acty1396)o on 1 J‘ilWntg — 1g Union of Endia throvgh General Manager [ C O R E, Allaudbao‘a 2g Chief Projact Manager, RWilw y Elactrifieation, B'laspurg ~ Versus — &=§)ondents gyl. Pvt M/S éin§y Lited, ioduSFriai New aslhio Favor ProjeCt , shri UgN. Majhi, ex F A 2 CA 0, ( RF) habchi, at present Divigional’RailESy Manager, Sonpur, Bihar. :‘zi‘ L’ ‘ ‘ L UQIDER 4 "T LON 37 OE‘ THE 3. <BET‘? \T‘ i UN VG“ conCWliwtWon xctzyi§2§% mi 2 W 2 00 633% Wag (Wu) WWW mmm Wmm WW§W‘W twm w-oz-zm Shri P S Koshy learned c ounsel farthe appeuanu; Shn Gautam Khetrapal counsel for me respondent; Heard. The instant appeal has ordar..pa$sad by the DIW- petmonundetsewon34ofthe seeing aside the award prefe as barred by Iimihtion.~ Leamed counsel fol lhe older was. passed in the However,leamedDlslrictJ ground met the award has has been presumed that the appellants on the same day a 1499 re beyond lhe period section 34=of the Apt. lthas award lhatthepelitlon doesrnol It only mentions thetlhe award Ge DRJ FS/350 l2/2000—~50,000‘ been preferred egalnet- the impugned Bllaspur on 27.7.2000 by which the itmtion and Goncillahon M1996 f0!” bytheeppellentshasbeendiemleeed appellamsubmitsmatmoinwemd: ee of lhe. Waiver or his counsel has dlsmlesedthe pelltien solelyron the passeden 1612199aandmereiorelt ame must have been reoelved bythe' t aslhepeihon hasbeenpreierredonh of wee months es preserlbed under-- been polnleo out ln the lmpugned~ oselhedateofreoelplofmeewarow passed on 16:12.1998; » ~a \ , ‘ rr ‘ w = : n t » EWWW Mgw q.. WO ~Wm (W) marrow ,2- mww wmm From the pemsal of the Judge Vida ordet datad 13 1099 to can the original record ftom e sols atbitrato! Shti U N Manihi and I tome Amhatotbsend marecordV m oompuamV iwm; the aforesaid om mm er mquismonsand reminm §re sriownto have been surname manner » ontoawaitmeawardasalsome~ origitia! record. However. on 27. .2000 the petition was dismissed in the absonoe of the petitioner as barr by timNon: me memo was directed to be to the Court” Taking into consideration and tumor considering he himself called for the original would have demonstramd as to reach the conclusion that the a appellant on 16.12.1998 M. E or his counsel, on 27.7.2000 moth Wont affording an o address on that point. Leamed counsei for rate respondents submits that it would‘be , appropriate that if aher allowing the appeal the parties are directed to ‘3 L GL DRJ.FS/350~ I2/2000~50,000. mmdwm animated but till 6.4.2000 there was a d facts and circumstances of diocese» that the leemed District Judge has from the Arbivator which alone the awardwasserrttotho pardes‘ aher signature and when the sa e was received. It was not proper to rd must have been received by the iariy, in the absenoe‘of he petihoner of limitahoncouidnot be decided on nity of hearingvto the parties to O r p i XI-HC—78 ' .. v ,.. ., . ......\l.\..u WW (W27) mww WWW WW WWR ammm —>3.—v appearbaforetheDlsttietMge atixeddatewhomtumshaudecide “ the appeal within a spacified peri Taking into consideration submissions mm by counsei for me patties and alsoconsidering -maieriai avaiiabie on moord I am M the opinion that the appeai ‘eswbevaliwedandmeimpugned order of dismissai of the petition under sewer: 34-9f the M is iiable to besetaside andthemaierbe anded backhmeDistiat'Judgewm'i’ a direction to decide the obhcti regarding die limihien aiter hearing oounsol for the parties. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is thus eliowed. R . Sd/- " :vr. 31E§g§ ‘ Dhirendra Mishraa /