The Supreme Court has asserted that courts should not normally interfere with the award of an arbitrator unless there was a gross error apparent on the face of the record. The court stated this while dismissing the appeal of the central government in an arbitration dispute, G Ramachandra Reddy vs Union of India. The central government chose a contractor to build accommodation for married officers at a naval air station in Chennai. Following disputes between the contractor and the government, an arbitrator was appointed. He gave an award in favour of the contractor. The government moved the Madras high court against the award. Though the single judge bench declined to interfere with the award, the division bench set aside part of the award. The contractor appealed to the Supreme Court. Allowing it, the court said: “The court while dealing with an award would not reappreciate the evidence. An award containing reasons also may not be interfered with unless they are found to be perverse or based on a wrong proition of law. If two views are possible, the court will refrain itself from interfering.”
Trainees have no right tobe regularised
The Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Madras high court directing the sick Hindustan Photo Films to regularise more than 100 trainees it had taken 10 years ago. The Supreme Court stated that the trainees were taken for a fixed period on a specific salary. They have no claim for reinstatement, especially when the high court itself had asserted that the company was sick, and "had it not been a public sector company, it would probably have closed down long ago." The high court ordered their reinstatement because ten years ago they were ordered to be reinstated in an interim order. The Supreme Court stated that merely because of the old interim order, the trainees could not be ordered to be kept in employment.
Insurance: Can't benefit twice
The Supreme Court has held in the appeal, National Insurance Co vs Hamida Khatoon, that a person could not claim benefits both under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act. In this case, the driver of a vehicle died when a Border Security Force truck hit it in a rash manner. His widow claimed compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It granted her Rs 1.20 lakh. The insurance company appealed against it before the Allahabad high court. But it confirmed the tribunal's order. The insurance company then appealed to the Supreme Court, citing Section 53 of the ESI Act. According to this provision, an ESI insured person or his dependents shall not be entitled to receive, from the employer or from any other person, any compensation or damages under any law in respect of an employment injury. Accepting this argument, the Supreme Court asked the tribunal to work out the entitlement taking note of Section 53 of the ESI Act.
State bifurcation: Central cooperative law to apply
The Supreme Court set aside the judgement of the Allahabad high court and ruled that after the birth of Uttarakhand, carved out of Uttar Pradesh, in 2000, cooperative societies carrying out their business in both the states shall be governed by the central Multi-State Cooperative Socieites Act and not by the UP State Cooperative Societies Act. This issue arose in the case of the UP Cooperative Processing and Cold Storages Federation Limited. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies under the central law tried to control the federation. Opposing this, the Registrar of Cooperative under the state law moved the Allahabad high court. It quashed the central registrar's orders. Some cooperatives functioning in both states appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court view and ruled that the cooperative federation would be governed by the Multi-State Act.
Special police force's regularisation
Observing that the morale of the force engaged in detecting infiltrators would be boosted if they had job security, the Supreme Court has asked the Government to consider regularisation of nearly 1,300 special police personnel (ex-servicemen) working on contract basis in Assam. “The staff entrusted with such sensitive functions and duties can work wholeheartedly and with commitment in adverse and hostile conditions only if they have security of tenure, without having to constantly worry about their future,” a bench of Justices R V Raveendran and B Sudershan Reddy observed in a judgement. These personnel were appointed by the Assam Government under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Scheme (PIF) 1960 for strengthening the machinery to detect and deport foreigners infiltrating into the country from the state. Under the scheme, while the state was to recruit the force, the Centre was to reimburse their expenses.
