KASHI RAM JAIN Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner entered into a contract with the respondent Delhi Developmnt Authority for the execution of the work of Development of land in Zone E-8 to E-12 (Phase 1) as per agreement No. 14/EE/DDV/72-73. Clause 25 of the Agreement is as follows :

(2.) By giving reasons the arbitrator is supposed to state what is the claim of the contractor, what is the reply of the department, what is the oral or documentary evidence on record, relating to a particular claim and what is the decision and the reasons thereof. From the reasons given by the arbitrator it is not possible to find out what is the claim, what is the reply and what is the evidence in support of the claim and what are the reasons for the decision arrived at by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has only rejected the claim or has held under claim No. 2 that the claim is justified to the extent of Rs. 4691, The reference is made to the various proceedings and no reason is given in support of the decision arrived at by the arbitrator. Under Claim No. 9 the arbitrator rejected the claim on the ground that the claimant has not been able to satisfy the respondent as per terms of clause 10(c) that the enhanced wages were actually paid by him to the labourers, This does not appear to he a method for decision of a claim of the contractor by the arbitrator. It appears that the chimant contractor filed his claim and the Delhi Development Authority filed its reply and the arbitrator has observed that the contractor has failed to satisfy the respondent. For a decision it is not the satisfaction of respondent but it is the satisfaction of the arbitrator whether the contractor is or is not entitled to a particular claim. From the reasons given under the claim No. 9 it does not appear what was the claim and what was the defence of the department. Clause 10(c) of the contract pertains to the enhanced price of the material used or the enhanced wages paid by the contractor on the basis of somo increase either in the price of material or the labour charges. It appears that the arbitrator did not apply his mind while settling the claims. Some of the claims, the arbitrator states, were withdrawn by the petitioner contractor.

(3.) The reasons given in support of the award are not intelligible. When a matter is referred to arbitration and the arbitrator is required to give reasons in support of the award he has to follow the principles of natural justice although he is not bound to follow the procedure prescribed under the evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure. A reasoned award should be self-contained. The so called reasons given by the arbitrator attached to the award are not reasons in support of the award. The learned counsel for the Respondent has taken me through the proceedings of the arbitrator with respect to each and every claim of the petitioner. The arbitrator 1 must say did not apply his mind while deciding claim of the petitioner. Parties have chosen him to decide the disputes between them and the arbitrator without applying his mind to the statement of claim, the counter statement of claim and the evidence on record cannot reject the. claims of the contractor. It is true that the court is not to sit as a court of appeal over the award of the arbitrator but when the arbitrator is required to give reasons in support of the award it is expected that the arbitrator follows the principles of natural justice and give reasons which are intelligible, so that the court may come to the conclusion whether there is any error of law apparent on the face of the award. The facts and the law if any applicable to particular claim have to be mentioned. For these reasons I am of the view that the arbitrator has not complied with clause 25 of the contract whereby he was required to give reasons in support of the award. For these reasons I hold that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings and I set aside the award.