Report No. 76

3.34. Section 11.-

Certain considerations of public policy do arise in the field of arbitration. Even where a particular award has been made pursuant to the agreed procedure, the question may yet arise whether as a matter of public policy, the award should be enforceable. An award entitles the beneficiary to call on the power of the State to enforce it, and it is the function of the court to see that this power is not abused. Similar principles apply where the stage of award has not yet been reached, but one of the parties has a grievance that the arbitrator is guilty of a particular default.

If the grievance is genuine, the law ought not to lend its aid to the continuance of the arbitration proceedings before the particular arbitrator, because that would, in substance, mean that the power of the State is being resorted to where, as a matter of public policy, it ought not to be utilised. This, speaking broadly, is the rationale underlying the provision in section 11, under which the court can remove the arbitrator in certain circumstances. The expression used the expression of importance-is "misconduct"; this expression has various shades of meaning, which, of course, need not be dealt with in this introductory paragraph. The ultimate end of the statutory provision in section 11-as indeed, of all provisions of the Act-is to secure justice.