RAJ KUMAR TYAGI Vs. CENTRAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") has been filed by the above named petitioner seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to settle certain disputes which have arisen in regard to the execution of some work by the petitioner for the respondent/department. It is stated that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties in Clause 25 of the terms and conditions of the Contract which stipulates for settlement of disputes/differences between the parties through arbitration if the disputes are not settled at the departmental level i.e at the level of Superintendent Engineer and the Chief Engineer. According to the petitioner the following disputes have arise between the parties:

(2.) IN relation to the work executed by the petitioner and the above claims vide letter dated 16.9.2002, the petitioner approached the concerned Executive Engineer to look into his grievance in relation to the said disputes and clear the payment within 30 days. He did not receive any reply/decision from the concerned authorities. Vide letter dated 31.10.2002, the petitioner further approached the Superintending Engineer asking him to release the payment of the said disputed items within the stipulated period of 30 days and further notifying him his intention that if no such decision is communicated he would take recourse to the provision of Clause 25 of the contract. Even this was not responded to by the respondent and the grievance of the petitioner remained outstanding. Petitioner, therefore, issued a communication dated 1.12.2002 to the Chief Engineer C.P.W.D, referring to his earlier communications dated 16.9.2002 and 17.10.2002 to the Executive Engineer and dated 31.10.2002 addressed to the Superintendent Engineer informing him that his grievance relating to the said disputes remained undecided and calling upon the Chief Engineer to render his decision within the stipulated period of 30 days failing which it was contemplated to invoke the Arbitration Agreement contained in Clause 25. The Chief Engineer did not take any decision on the said request of the petitioner and so the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present petition.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D. Moitra, learned counsel representing the petitioner and Mr. Jaswinder Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent and have given my thoughtful consideration to their respective submissions.