Arbitrator ineligibility and absence of express written waiver can invalidate awards under mandatory neutrality rules.

Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 creates a mandatory ineligibility bar where the arbitrator falls within the Seventh Schedule, and the bar can be waived only by an express agreement in writing after disputes have arisen. On the stated facts, the sole arbitrator was an employee of the respondent Railways, the appointing authority itself was treated as ineligible, and the contract did not contain the later safeguards relied on in railway arbitration jurisprudence. The tribunal's constitution therefore breached the neutrality requirement, and no express written waiver was shown; the awards were liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral awards were liable to be set aside on the ground that the sole arbitrator was ineligible under Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with the Seventh Schedule, and that there was no express written waiver of the statutory bar.

Analysis: The statutory scheme requires disclosure of circumstances affecting neutrality, and after the 2016 amendment, Section 12(5) creates an ineligibility bar where the arbitrator falls within the categories in the Seventh Schedule. The proviso permits waiver only by an express agreement in writing after disputes have arisen. On the facts, the arbitrator was an employee of the respondent Railways, the appointing authority was itself treated as ineligible, and the contract did not contain the modified safeguards considered in later railway arbitration jurisprudence. The Court therefore held that the constitution of the tribunal offended the mandatory neutrality requirement and that no express written waiver had been made.

Conclusion: The arbitrator was ineligible and the awards were liable to be set aside.

---