Facial error in award bars enforcement of personal service contract and justifies setting aside the declaration

An award was held to disclose an error on its face where it declared that dismissal had no effect and that the employee continued in service. If enforced, that declaration would have compelled the employer to treat the claimant as still employed, amounting to specific enforcement of a contract of personal service, which the law prohibits. A facial error exists when the award itself, or an incorporated document, states a plainly erroneous legal proposition. The argument that the impugned declaration was merely consequential or severable failed because it formed part of the award and was not shown to be separable. The award was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the award was liable to be set aside for disclosing an error on its face by directing relief amounting to specific enforcement of a contract of personal service.

Analysis: The award declared that the dismissal had no effect on the appellant's status and that he continued to be a professor. Such a declaration, if carried into a decree, would require the respondent to treat the appellant as still in service. That would amount to specific enforcement of a contract of personal service, which the law forbids. An error on the face of the award exists where the award itself, or a document incorporated into it, contains a legal proposition that is plainly erroneous. The objection that the offending part was merely consequential or surplusage was rejected because the declaration formed part of the award and was not shown to be severable. The award was also distinguished from cases involving statutory invalidity or disputes not based on contract of service.

Conclusion: The award disclosed an error on its face and was rightly set aside.

---