Arbitrator's powers in distributorship disputes do not extend to restoration; damages are the proper relief for unlawful termination.

The arbitration clause covered disputes arising under the distributorship agreement, but it did not empower the arbitrator to create a substantive right to restoration of the distributorship. Even if termination was unlawful, the proper relief available in arbitration was damages on the analogy of a civil court, not reinstatement of the contractual relationship. Observations in earlier writ proceedings could not enlarge the arbitrator's jurisdiction beyond the contract and the reference. The arbitrator therefore had no jurisdiction to direct restoration of the distributorship; only damages, if otherwise warranted, could be awarded.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the terms of the arbitration clause and the reference, the arbitrator had jurisdiction to direct restoration of the distributorship after holding the termination unlawful.

Analysis: The dispute referred to arbitration concerned the termination of the distributorship and the monetary consequences flowing from it. The arbitration clause was held to cover disputes arising under the agreement, but not to confer power on the arbitrator to create a substantive right to restoration of the distributorship. Even if the termination were found to be unlawful, the proper relief available to the arbitrator was damages, on the analogy of a civil court, and not reinstatement of the contractual relationship. Any observation in the earlier writ proceedings could not enlarge the arbitrator's jurisdiction beyond what the contract and reference permitted.

Conclusion: The arbitrator had no jurisdiction to direct restoration of the distributorship; only damages, if otherwise warranted, could be awarded.

---