An arbitration decision generally has the force of law behind it, but does not set a

legal precedent. A determination arrived at through binding arbitration (arbitrato

rituale) can be appealed only when a party wishes to seek revocation, and, when
appropriate, can be done by a third party objection in front of ordinary judge
(I.C.P.C § 827 )

Difference between Arbitration, Mediation and

Conciliation
These three modes of ADR are the most effectively and efficiently used in the
present world. But there is a huge confusion amongst people about the
difference between the three as there are minor differences between these
methods.

In case of conciliation and mediation the confusion is more as the terms are
often used as synonyms. However, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
clearly used these two terms as separate.Section 30(1) have used these two as
two separate methods and the same is mentioned under Section 89 of the Civil
Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1908.

Hence the difference between the three modes of ADR is explained in this
Article.

Definition Clause

The term Arbitration is defined under Section 2(1)(a) [1] of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. There are various landmark judgments which have
defined Arbitration.One of such Judgment is of Collins v. Collins,[2] this case
defines Arbitration as “a reference to the decision of one or more persons,
either with or without an Arbitrator, of a particular matter in difference between
the parties.”

But there is no proper definition given under any law or act, for mediation and
conciliation. The meaning of both Meditation and Conciliation is generally
understood by their function and procedure.
Meaning

In case of Arbitration the person resolving the dispute is known as an Arbitrator.

An arbitrator is a neutral person chosen to resolve the dispute outside the court
while in case of Mediation the person resolving the dispute is known as a
Mediator.A mediator is the one who resolves disputes between people,
organization, states or any other communities.

In case of Conciliation, a person resolving the Dispute is known as Conciliator. A

conciliator is a person one who assists the parties in an impartial manner to
reach a peaceful settlement of disputes.

Applicability

In case of Arbitration, parties need to have an Arbitration agreement only then

they can resolve their dispute via arbitration. Under Section 7 of the 1996 Act,
the agreement must be writing to be enforceable. Also, consent of both the
parties is also necessary it can be oral or written. An Arbitrator is appointed in
cases involving major disputes, where the parties are unreasonable or in cases
when specific area specialization is required.

While in case of Mediation or Conciliation no such agreement is required.

Generally, the court sends matter which suits or can be resolved via Mediation
and Conciliation or if the matter is such that the parties don’t want to bring the
information in public then to keep it private they go for mediation and
conciliation. A conciliator or Mediator is appointed in cases involving minor
disputes.

Procedure

In case of Arbitration the Arbitrator take his decision based on the facts, side
stories and evidence of the case which may or may not be favorable to one
party. Arbitrator conducts the proceeding strictly by legal restriction and is
bound to follow the neutral approach in resolving the dispute.

In the case of Mediation, the mediator has the liberty to select any suitable
method of resolve the dispute as there are no strict guidelines to follow.
While in case of conciliation the conciliator is bound to follow the process given
under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Sections 61 to 81).

Cost

The Process of Arbitration as compared to mediation and conciliation, it more

costly and lengthy process. In case of Arbitration, each part pays for its own
expenses or Arbitrator. On the other hand, in case of conciliation and
mediation, the cost of process and mediator and conciliator is equally divided
among the parties.

Judgment

An Arbitrator is a judge of the dispute and provides resolution measures which

are binding on the parties unless parties beforehand agreed that the outcome of
the proceeding won’t be binding.

In the case of mediation, a mediator does not deliver any judgment. A mediator
is a mere facilitator who assists in developing option and dialogue between the
parties to achieve a mutual agreement favorable for both the parties.

While in case of conciliation, the role of a conciliator is more than that of a

mediator as a conciliator is considered has a pro-active role and is not merely a
facilitator. A conciliator can as per Section 67(4) of the 1996 act can make a
proposal for settlement between the parties when there is scope for settlement
which is presented to parties and the parties have an issue then the conciliator
has the right to reform the settlement proposal.

The difference between conciliation and mediation: The difference between

conciliation and mediation:

Under our law and the UNCITRAL model, the role of the mediator is not pro-active
and is somewhat less than the role of a ‘conciliator’. We have seen that under Part
III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the ’Conciliator’s powers are larger than
those of a ‘mediator’ as he can suggest proposals for settlement. Hence the above
meaning of the role of ‘mediator’ in India is quite clear and can be accepted, in
relation to sec. 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure also. The difference lies in the fact
that the ‘conciliator’ can make proposals for settlement, ‘formulate’ or ‘reformulate’
the terms of a possible settlement while a ‘mediator’ would not do so but would
merely facilitate a settlement between the parties. Brown quotes (at p 127) the 1997
Handbook of the City Disputes Panel, UK which offers a range of dispute resolution
processes, facilitative, evaluative and adjudicative. It is there stated that conciliation
“is a process in which the Conciliator plays a proactive role to bring about a
settlement” and mediator is “a more passive process”. This is the position in India,
UK and under the UNCITRAL model. However, in the USA, the person having the
pro-active role is called a ‘mediator’ rather than a ‘conciliator’

Under our law, in the context of sec. 30 and sec. 64(1) and sec. 73(1) of the 1996
Act, the conciliator has a greater or a pro-active role in making proposals for a
settlement or formulating and reformulating the terms of a settlement. A mediator
is a mere facilitator. The meaning of these words in India is the same in the
UNCITRAL and Conciliation Rules and in UK and Japan. But, in USA and in regard to
certain institutions abroad, the meaning is just the reverse, a ‘conciliator’ is a mere
‘facilitator’ whereas a ‘mediator’ has a greater pro-active role. While examining the
rules made in US in regard to ‘mediation’, if we substitute the word ‘conciliation’
wherever the word ‘mediation’ is used and use the word ‘conciliator’ wherever the
word ‘mediator’ is used, we shall be understanding the said rules as we understand
them in connection with ‘conciliation’ in India

https://www.slideshare.net/Dharmikpatel7992/adr-final-project-24274533

http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/725/Principles-&-Procedure-of-
conciliation-under-Arbitration-&-Conciliation-Act-
1996.html

https://www.writinglaw.com/conciliation-under-adr/

https://thelegalinfo.com/2021/06/17/what-is-conciliation-in-adr/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/arbitration-conciliation-and-mediation/
#:~:text=Conciliation%20is%20an%20alternative
%20dispute,to%20agree%20upon%20an
%20agreement.&text=That%20decision%20made%20by
%20the,way%20as%20a%20court%20decision.
https://lawtimesjournal.in/difference-between-arbitration-mediation-and-
conciliation/