arbitration award correctionArticle 33 Arbitration Actfunctus officioclerical errorstypographical errors
Tags
arbitration reviewcorrection of awardfunctus officioprocedural irregularity
legislation
Statutes Cited
Labour Act
Arbitration Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether arbitrator was functus officio when correcting typographical errors in award after initial issuance","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Arbitrator issued initial award 4 August 2025, corrected errors 5 August 2025, issued corrected award 8 August 2025"}
{"issue_text":"Whether correction of typographical errors constitutes gross procedural irregularity","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Corrections involved only names of employer representative and referring labour officer"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, employed as an Accounts Clerk since 2008, challenged the arbitrator's correction of an arbitration award regarding disputed working hours reduction. The arbitrator corrected typographical errors in party representatives' names after issuing the initial award.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases