1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23.12.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P(MD)No.14969 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 P.V.Jayaraman ... Petitioner Versus 1. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Court Complex, Trichy – 1. 2. The Arbitrator, Arbitration Tribunal, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Head Office, No.12, Thambusamy Salai, Keelpakkam, Chennai – 600 010. ... Respondents PRAYER : Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the second respondent in Arbitration case No.16/10 Ve.Pu dated 05.08.2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to pay Rs.7,46,596.25/- along with ensuing interest to the Writ Petitioner. For Petitioner : Ms.J.Maria Roseline O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above Writ Petition, challenging an arbitration award. 2. Heard Ms.J.Maria Roseline, learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. As against an arbitration award, the only remedy open to the petitioner is to file a petition under Section 34. But the grievance of the petitioner is that the provisions of Section 34 are so rigid and so divided by water tight compartments that the petitioner cannot get the injustice meted out to him remedied. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Rohtas Industries Limited and another Vs. Rohtas Industries Staff Union and others. 4. But unfortunately the law has come a long way from what it was in 1976. After the advent of UNCITRAL Model Law, the Arbitration and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Conciliation Act, 1996 has taken the law to greater heights. Moreover, the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner arose out of the award passed under Section 10-A of the Industrial Disputes Act and not even under the 1940 Arbitration Act. Therefore, the principles evolved in the said decision cannot apply to the case on hand. As an arbitration award passed under the Industrial Disputes Act is not governed even by 1940 or 1996 Act. 5. The apprehension of the petitioner that the injustice meted out to the petitioner cannot be remedied under Section 34 may not be correct. Section 34 certainly empowers the Court to remedy any substantial injustice caused to one of the parties, irrespective of the label given in the language used in Section 34. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all these grounds in a properly instituted Original Petition under Section 34, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Since the Court dealing with an application under Section 34 has the power by virtue of the proviso under Sub-Section (3) to condone the delay if any, it is made clear that the Court shall be liberal in condoning the delay if any on the part of the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation, Court Complex, Trichy – 1. 2. The Arbitrator, Arbitration Tribunal, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation Head Office, No.12, Thambusamy Salai, Keelpakkam, Chennai – 600 010. + 1 cc to M/s.Sri Balaji, Advocate, SR No.45640 W.P(MD)No.14969 of 2011 23.12.2011 ps RJ/23.12.11 (IT) 2p/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/