JUDGMENT : 1. This arbitration appeal has been preferred challenging the order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, 1st – Bokaro in Misc.(Arb.) Case No. 7 of 2004. The said order of the trial court is dated 19th July, 2013. By this order the learned trial court has dismissed the Misc. (Arb.) Case No. 7 of 2004, which was preferred by the present Appellant (who was the petitioner in the aforesaid Misc. Arbitration Case and respondent before the learned arbitrator). This Misc. (Arb.) case was preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the award dated 12th January, 2004, passed by the learned Arbitrator, whereby the claim of the present appellant was partly accepted and the claim of the present respondent (who was the claimant in the arbitration proceeding and respondent in the Misc. Arbitration Case No. 7 of 2004) was allowed. 2. Counsel appearing for the present appellant mainly raised the issue that the arbitrator, who was appointed by the present respondent, was an employee of the present respondent, viz. he was the Assistant General Manager in the respondent company when he was appointed the arbitrator and thereafter, he was elevated to the post of Dy. General Manager, and for the very reason that he was an employee of the present respondent, he could not have continued as an arbitrator. This argument was not accepted by the learned trial court, hence the order dated 19th July, 2013 passed in Misc. Arbitration Case No. 7 of 2004 deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Counsel for the respondent submitted that no such argument as aforesaid by the counsel for the present appellant was ever raised before the learned Arbitrator. Even otherwise also as per Section 12 and 13 of the Arbitrator and conciliation Act, 1996 grievances could have been ventilated by this appellant before the very same arbitrator. No objection was ever made before the learned Arbitrator and therefore, this case may not be entertained by this court. 4. Even otherwise also as per Section 12 and 13 of the Arbitrator and conciliation Act, 1996 grievances could have been ventilated by this appellant before the very same arbitrator. No objection was ever made before the learned Arbitrator and therefore, this case may not be entertained by this court. 4. Having heard counsel for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain the present arbitration appeal mainly for the following reasons: (a) Arbitration Clause was incorporated in the agreement entered into between the parties, which included terms regarding appointment of arbitrator, who is an employee of the respondent and it appears that the present appellant has signed the said agreement. The agreement is dated 11th March, 1999 and no objection was raised regarding this aspect at the relevant time. (b) It further appears that during the arbitration proceeding also no objection was ever raised by this appellant that the Arbitrator cannot continue as an arbitrator because he is an employee of the respondents. (c) This appellant has also not filed any application under Section 12 and 13 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the arbitration proceeding. (d) It further appears that the learned Arbitrator has observed in the last paragraph of the page no. 2 of the award in question as under: “ The arbitration proceedings were held in the officer chamber of the Sole Arbitrator i.e. Room No. III/3, ED (W) Bldg SAIL BSL. The undersigned, appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, was having the designation of Astt. General Manager at the time of appointment as Sole Arbitrator but subsequently elevated to the post of Dy General Manager. Both the parties deposited the amount as directed by the Sole Arbitrator. The Sole Arbitrator, being gainful position with the claimants, declared in the 1st sitting on 02052003 he had never been connected or dealt with this case at any point of time and he further declared that he would be neutral and impartial during the arbitral proceeding.” (Emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid observation of the learned Arbitrator, it appears that there was no objection from the side of the present appellant regarding arbitration proceeding before the said arbitrator. (e) it is also observed by the learned trial court, while dismissing the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in paragraph 12 of order dated 19th July, 2013 as under: “12. From bare perusal of the alleged section. It appears that any award is set aside on the ground which is contemplated in the above mentioned section. From perusal of the record, it appears that Sr. D.N.Singh who was A.G.M. At the time of appointment but subsequently elevated to the post of D.G.M. Was appointed the sole Arbitrator and the petitioner and respondent participated in arbitration proceeding without any demure of protest, the dispute and differences arising out of in connection with purchase order No. P.16.0/P383/6421 dated 11.03.99 and amended dated 24.05.1999 for supply of Pre Stressed Concrete Sleepers as per IRS specification suitable for 52 kg rails as per Drg No. RDSO/T2495 ('Alternate2). From perusal of the para 5,6,7,8, and 9 of award, it appears that the Ld. Sole Arbitrator, after going through each and every documents and papers which were placed by the parties and after strictly perusing claim and counter claim of the parties passed a reasoned speaking order upon the every point. During the arbitral proceedings the Ld. Arbitrator found that the claimant SAIL had not made a payment in time to respondent (M/s Amar Concrete) in lieu of supply of materials existing the contract. Thus, the Ld. Arbitrator rightly find and hold in his para 9 (iii) that the M/s Amar Concrete herein petitioner is entitled to interest Rs. 77, 193/for delay payment of its bill. Further the Ld. Arbitrator rightly discarded the others claim of the M/s Amar concrete Pvt. Ltd who was the respondent before the arbitral proceedings and herein is the petitioner. (Emphasis supplied) 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons, it appears that the ground canvassed by the counsel for the applicant is not tenable at law and is not a ground good enough for quashing the order dated 19th July, 2013 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Ist, Bokaro. No other ground has been agitated by the counsel for the present appellant. 6. Hence, this arbitration application is, hereby, dismissed.