Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

ii) Niranjan Chatterjee & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

reported at 2007 (3) CHN 683;

iii) Pijush Kanti Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

reported at 2007(3) CHN 178;

iv) Viswapriya (India) Limited & Ors. Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors. reported at MANU/TN/2482/2015;

v) Him Privesh Environment Protection Society Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. reported at MANU/HP/0687/2012.

It is submitted that the argument of the respondent that other authority under Section 18 of 1993 Act would not include arbitrator has been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in HDFC Bank Ltd. and the said view was affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench. In view thereof, it is no more open for the petitioner to argue that the arbitrator would come within the purview of other authority. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India (supra) was distinguished by submitting that the Hon'ble Supreme Court was interpreting Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968. The issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether or not under the relevant rules and provisions of the Act, the Railway Authorities have the jurisdiction to appoint a retired employee of the Department as "enquiry officer" within the ambit of Rule 9(2) of the Railway Servants (Discipline And Appeal) Rules, 1968 (for short referred to as "the Rules"). In the absence of any definition of the word "authority" the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred to the dictionary meanings of the said word and has held that the authority should be understood on its plain language and without necessarily curtailing its scope. The "other authority"