MADRAS HIGH COURT (Arb.O.P.(COM.DIV.) No. 509 of 2023; N. Anand Venkatesh, J.; orders pronounced 07.01.2026): Section 34 petition by Chennai Port Authority (f/k/a Chennai Port Trust) against the award dated 14.06.2023 of the Sole Arbitrator (Hon'ble Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla) in Arbitration Case No.1 of 2019 — granting arrears/back wages with attendant benefits, gratuity, dearness allowance arrears and reinstatement, category-wise, to deceased, superannuated and serving spillage-handling workmen (93 claimants) with 6% p.a. interest (8% on default) — DISMISSED; Application Nos.5610 of 2023 and 3134 & 3866 of 2024 closed. Core rulings: (1) Jurisdiction — the Tribunal was consensually appointed pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated 15.02.2018 in Chairman, CMD Ennore Port Trust v. V. Manoharan, (2018) 3 SCC 612; paragraphs 21–37 of that order are 'directions' bearing an Article 142 character (corroborated by the Port Trust's own M.As 865 & 866 of 2022 extending the mandate); the Port Trust's objections to the Tribunal's scope/locus, raised for the first time under Section 34, fail — such pleas, though questions of law, are subject to waiver (Gayatri Project, (2025) 10 SCC 750, applied); the Tribunal's locus finding is 'clearly unassailable'. (2) Merits — the ASG did not canvass the evidence-based findings: the Association was a name-lender, the contract sham and nominal, the 93 workmen were Port Trust employees, and there was no backdoor entry (Umadevi plea rebuffed on the facts); the findings are cogent, not perverse, and the alternative-view test is foreign to Section 34 (Associate Builders; Ssangyong applied). (3) Reinstatement — the terminations of 06.12.2012/01.08.2016 breached the Division Bench's directions in Avoor Muthiah Maistry Street Residents Association v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2011 SCC Online Mad 678 ('not even a single employee is retrenched'), and were therefore non-est/void (Machhindranath, (2025) 7 SCC 456, quoting Dhurandhar Prasad Singh, (2001) 6 SCC 534, and DPP v. Head, 1959 AC 83); the workmen must be treated as having continued in employment; recourse to Section 25-N IDA was 'not strictly necessary', and the 'reinstatement' direction is consequential and permissible — not barred specific performance (Prabhakar Sitaram Bhadange, (2017) 5 SCC 623, and S.B. Dutt, AIR 1958 SC 1050, distinguished; China Datang Technologies, 2025 MHC 2716, inapposite). The Court exhorts fairness by this State instrumentality (Firm Kaluram Sitaram, AIR 1954 Bom 50, quoted). Interim phases: deposit of Rs.14,11,81,705/- plus 8% interest ordered (complied: Rs.15,02,79,222/-); Rs.6,87,72,186/- gratuity plus interest disbursed to about 70 workmen without prejudice.
