The Krishna Construction Co. Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

- labour & services disability pension: [vikramajit sen, sanjiv khanna & s.l.bhayana,jj] army act (46 of 1950), section 192 & pension regulations for the army (1961), regulation. 173 claimant was on casual leave sustained injury which contributed to invalidation for military service claim for disability pension held, to claim disability pension by military personnel it requires to be established that the injury or fatality suffered by the concerned claimant bears a causal connection with military service. secondly, if this obligation exists so far as discharge from the armed force on the opinion of a medical board the obligation and responsibility a fortiori exists so far as injuries and fatalities suffered during casual leave are concerned. thirdly, as a natural corollary it is irrelevant whether the concerned personnel was on causal or annual leave at the time or at the place when and where the incident transpired. this is so because it is the causal connection which alone is relevant. fourthly, since travel to and fro the place of posting may not appear to everyone as an incident of military service, a specific provision has been incorporated in the pension regulations to bring such travel within the entitlement for disability pension if an injury is sustained in this duration. fifthly, it cannot be said that each and every injury sustained while availing of casual leave would entitle the victim to claim disability pension. sixthly, provisions treating casual leave as on duty would be relevant for deciding questions pertaining to pay or to the right of the authorities to curtail or cancel the leave. lastly, injury or death resulting from an activity not connected with military service would not justify and sustain a claim for disability pension. this is so regardless f whether the injury or death has occurred at the place of posting or during working hours. this is because attributability to military service is a factor which is required to be established......since the learned counsel for the respondent is not present in court today it has to be presumed that the appointment of shri singhal was made after this court had issued notice in this application on 31st july, 2002. accordingly as per the law laid down in datar switchgears ltd. v. tata finance ltd. & another reported as jt2000 (2) 226, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the petition.3. this position of the law laid down by this court and the hon'ble supreme court as extracted above is categorical. thereforee once the party moves the court under section 11(6) of the act, the right of the opposite party to appoint an arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement ceases. the above position of law squarely applies to the present case. the respondent's right to appoint an arbitrator stood extinguished on 31st july, 2002, the date when the petitioner approached this court under section 11(6) of the act and the appointment of shri a.k. singhal sought to be made on a date which is not disclosed by the respondents is of no avail and is accordingly set aside.4. accordingly petition is allowed and mr. justice t.p.s. chawla, a retired chief justice of this court, e-338, east of kailash, new delhi-110065(tel.26461041, 26460779) is appointed as the arbitrator. the parties to appear before the arbitrator on 4th january, 2005 at 4.00 pm or any other date found to be suitable to the learned arbitrator. the arbitrator to fix his fees in consultation with the parties. the learned arbitrator is requested to give his award, not later than 6 months from the first date of the hearing. 5. this petition stands allowed and disposed of accordingly in the above terms.