LexDR. S.B. DUTT versus UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
September 3. • • 1236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959) Dr. K B. DVTT • •. v. UXIVERSlTY OF DELHI (V ENKATARAMA AIYAR, GA.rn~DRAGADKAR and A. K. SARKAH J.J.) • Arbitration -- A<fard - Direction for enforcement of contract of personal service-ll alid£ty-Such direction, if an error on the face of the au·ard--Dcl/1i U11iversity Act, 1922 (No. I' I I I of r922), s. 45. The appellant, a professor in the respondent Cniversity, \Vas dismissed from service by the respondent. 1 le thereupon referred the dispute as to his ctis1nissal and certain other <li~ putcs to arbitration unclcr the prudsions of s. 45 of the Delhi Cni,·ersity Act. 1\n a\rar<l \\'as rna<le on the reference \\'hich among other things decided that the appellant's "dismissal \\'as 1tltra v-ircs, tnala fide, and has no effect on his status. lie still continues to be a professor of the t:niversity ". On pr0c~c:clings to obtain a judgment on the a\vard: Held, that the award which purported to enforce a contract of personal service disclosed an error on lhe face of it and 111ust be set aside. High Commissioner for India,., I. M. Lall, (1948) L. R. 75 I. A. 225 ancl Ram Kissendas Dha1111ka v. Salya Ch11ra11 I.me, (I91'J) L. R. ·77 I. A. 128, clistingui!hecl. .1\n a\\·ard may disclose an error on its face though the reason for th~ erroneous decision \vas not set out in it. CllilmpS<y Hhara & Co. v. ]ivra.i /3alloo Spi1111i11g e111d ll'cat•w,; Co. Ltd., (1923) L.R. 50 I.A. 324, explaine<l. Held, further, that an award made under s. 45 of the Ddhi lJniversity .'\.ct to \\'hich the section itself 1nakes the pro\'isio11s of the Arbitration Act, 1940, applicable, is not the S'1,1nc thing as an a\\·ard under the Industrial Disputes .i\ct, r94j, and there can be no analogy bet,vccn the t\\'O and the '"·ords 'any. dispute' occurring in that section c::innot include a dispute relating to reinstatement or authorise the pas::iing of any such direction by the arbitrator. Western India 1lutoniobilc Association '" /;ul11strial 'f1·i!11ou1!. Bombay, [1949] F. C. R. 321, distinguished . CIVIL APPELLAn: JumsDICT!ON: Civil Ap1~al No. 229 of 1956 . • Appeal from•thc judgment and order dated January • 15, 1955, of the Punji~b High Court in F. A. 0. No. 119-D of 195f, ar.ising out of the judgment a1td decroo • • < • ~ . S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1237 dated May 27, 1954, of the Court of Sub-Judge Class III, Delhi, in Suit No. 206 of 1953. Dr. S. B. Dutt N. C. Chatterjee, A. N. Sinha and P. K. Mukherjee, . .v. . for the appellant. University of Delhi M. ·C. Setalvarl, Attorney-General for Inrlia, .A. B. Rohatgi and B. P. Maheshwari, for the respondent. 1958. September 3. The ,Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKAR J.-This appeal arises out of a proceed- Sarkar J. ing for filing an award in Court ·and obtaining a judg- ment thereon. The award was made in respect of disputes between the appellant, a professor of the respondent, the University of Delhi, and the respondent. The dispute originally started many years ago and with the pas- sage of time, increased in volume. A narrative of the disputes is necessary for the proper appreciation of the questions arising in this appeal and this we now proceed to give. On May 10, 1944, the appellant was appointed Pro- fessor of Chemistry by the respondent. In August '1P48 the Government of India appears to have sanc- tioned a scheme called the Selection Grade for a higher grade of pay for certain professors. T~e appellant cbimed to be entitled to the benefit of this scheme but it was not given to him by the respondent. This was the first dispute between the parties. In March, 1949, another professor, Dr. Seshadri, was appointed by the respondent the Head of its Department of Chemis- try. The appellant contended that he was the Head of the Department and had been wrongfully supersed- ed by the appointment of Dr. Seshadri as the Head. This gave rise to another disp11te. The appellant's case is that he tried to get this dispute solved by arbi- tration under the provisions of the Delhi University Act, 1922, but was unable to do so owing to the obstructive attitude of the University authorities, and was, therefore, on October 18, 1949, forced to file a suit for a declaration that his removal from his posi- tion of tl;te Head of the Department of Chemistry was illegal. The respondent in its turr. also had certain • 1238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [195
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.