Finality and issue estoppel barred a fresh arbitration reference over claims already decided by an unchallenged award.

A fresh reference of the same contractor claims before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal was barred because those claims had already been referred by consent to the Housing Commissioner, decided by award, and never challenged. The earlier award had attained finality, and the later reference sought to reagitate identical disputes without disclosing the prior proceedings. Applying the principles of finality and issue estoppel, the Tribunal held that the same claims could not be reopened in a fresh forum. The reference was therefore not maintainable, and the Tribunal's dismissal of it was upheld as correct.

---

---

Issues: Whether a fresh reference before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal was maintainable in respect of claims already referred by consent to the Housing Commissioner, decided by award, and not challenged.

Analysis: The dispute had earlier been referred by a consent order to the Housing Commissioner pursuant to the contractor's own writ petition. The contractor then submitted the same claims before that arbitrator, who made an award. The award was never challenged before the appropriate forum and therefore attained finality. The later reference before the Tribunal was founded on the very same claims, without disclosure of the earlier proceedings and award. Once the dispute had already been adjudicated and the award remained binding, the same claims could not be reagitated before the Tribunal. The bar operated on principles of finality and issue estoppel, and the Tribunal was right in holding the reference not maintainable.

Conclusion: The fresh reference was not maintainable and the Tribunal's dismissal of it was correct.

---