LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-410

CHANDER KANT AND CO. Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided On April 21, 2009
Chander Kant And Co. Appellant
V/S
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of learned Single Judge in respect of two claims i.e., claim No. 1 and claim No. 24.

(2.) WE take the issue of claim No. 24 first. In so far as claim No. 24 is concerned, it is not disputed that Clause No. 10C requires not only increase of statutory wages but also proof of payments thereof. In the present case, the proof of payments to the workmen concerned had not been produced by the appellant/claimant, and, accordingly, there is no documentary proof in so far as claim No. 24. Therefore, finding on claim No. 24 was rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) SIGNIFICANTLY , the arbitrator is an expert in the field being a retired Director General of Works, CPWD. Learned Single Judge has set aside the above finding on claim No. 1 by relying on running bill R -27. In our view, the learned Single Judge has upset a finding of the fact recorded by an Arbitrator which fell in his province as it is the Arbitrator who is the fact finding authority. The arbitrator records that for the materials for which adjustment sought by the DDA, there were no receipts (USRs) available as signed by the appellant/contractor. Learned Single Judge had not dealt with this finding of the arbitrator. There was no receipt available in the file and nor was the Registers for issue of the materials by the DDA signed at many places by the contractor and in spite of these factors, the learned Single Judge has merely placed only reliance on R -27 which shows that certain deductions had been made by DDA. In our view a finding of fact recorded by the arbitrator ought not to have been reversed by the learned Single Judge as the arbitrator is entitled to arrive at a finding of fact and unless it is wholly perverse in that such a finding of fact could never have been arrived at a court hearing objections against an award ought not to set aside such a finding of fact when two views were possible and an arbitrator had taken one plausible view.