BHARAT FURNISHING CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J.-

(2.) THIS is the second battle of the award. The first was before Sunanda Bhandare J., who by her order dated April 24, 1989, set aside the finding of the arbitrator on claim No. 7 and remitted the case back for fresh decision on claims No. 1, 2 and 5. THIS the arbitrator has done but the battle lines are still drawn.

(3.) WITH regard to claim No. 2, it was contended on behalf of the objector that as the delay of about six months in the completion of the job was attributable to the contractor and as the Senior Project Engineer, in terms of the agreement, had found the contractor to be at fault and had levied 1% compensation amounting to Rs. 7,106.20 and as the said sum had been deducted from the final bill, and further as the increase in minimum wages was after the period fixed for completion of the work, the contractor could not be allowed any amount under clause 10-C on account of increase in the minimum labour wages, and that, in any case, the arbitrator had travelled beyond his jurisdiction by allowing the claim. The finding on claim No. 5 too came under fire. By it the arbitrator has allowed the refund of Rs. 7,106.20 to the contractor. This amount was deducted on account of the levy of compensation by the Senior Project Engineer on account of six months delay in the completion of the work. It was argued that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vishwanath Sood v. Union of India1, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to allow the refund.