Civil Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2010 Date of decision: 28.02.2011 M/s Icon Management Security and Detectives ....Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is a security and detective agency having a registered office at Gurgaon. The petitioner entered into an agreement for providing Security Guards and Gunmen to respondent No.3 for deploying them at telephone exchanges. As per the petitioner, the stipulation was for payment of the security personnel at the wage structure/policy issued by the Director General Resettlement (DGR) from time to time. The DGR issued various clarifications regarding the wages paid to the Security personnel. It is stated that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. issued letter to all Heads of Telecom circle regarding the wage policy effective from 1.2.2007 for information. Civil Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2010 -2- The case set up by the petitioner is that despite the mandatory clause of the agreement for the wages to be paid at par Delhi State minimum wages, respondent No.3 has not implemented the wage structure issued by the DGR. The petitioner had requested respondent Nos.3 to 4 to implement the said wage structure and reference is also made to the clarification issued by the DGR for payment of EPF and ESI. The period of two years, which was the term of the contract, has expired and contract has been given to some another agency. The petitioner, therefore, has filed this writ petition seeking payment of difference of wages for the security arrangement provided for approximately two years as per the wage policy agreed to. The respondents have filed reply and would point out to clause 33 of the agreement, which has made a provision for appointment of an Arbitrator to solve the dispute regarding the agreement entered into between the parties. Clause 33 of the Agreement is as under:- “33. In case of any dispute regarding agreement entered into the matter will be referred to the C.G.M.T.D. HR telecom Circle Ambala or any person nominated by him for whose decision will be final and binding on both the parties.” Thus, Chief General Managing Director Telecom, District Haryana is the one to whom the matter can be referred to or any person nominated by him who is to act as an Arbitrator and whose decision is to be final and binding on both the parties. Civil Writ Petition No. 1309 of 2010 -3- The counsel for respondents No.2 to 4, accordingly, was directed to have instructions for getting name of person who could be detailed as an Arbitrator, so that the matter could be referred to the agreed Arbitrator for resolving the dispute as raised in the present writ petition. Counsel for the respondents has placed before me a list of following four persons, one out of whom can be appointed to act as an Arbitrator as per the agreement:- “(1) Sh. Israr Ahmad, Dy. General Manager, BSNL, Rohtak. (2) Sh. B.S. Yadav, Dy. General Manager, BSNL, Rewari. (3) Sh. Poonam Garg, Dy. General Manager, BSNL, Karnal. (4) Sh. Gobind Gupta, Dy. General Manager, BSNL, Ambala.” With the concurrence of the parties, Sh. B.S. Yadav, Deputy General Manager, BSNL, Rewari, is appointed as an Arbitrator in this case. The parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 10.3.2011. The Arbitrator shall take up the matter and decide the same in accordance with time schedule laid down in the Arbitration Act. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. February 28, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE