U P STATE Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 18/3/1963, Mohan Lal, the respon dent entered into a contract with the State Government for the construction of a 9 feet wide service road along the Jhansi Babina Gravity Main, under contract bond No. 5/9/SE of 1962-63. After the work was finalised and pay ment in full and final settlement of its claim was made to ' the contractor, he raised a dispute claiming a, sum of Rupees 35000/-, on the ground that he had spent this money over the extraction of roots of trees while the work of earth filling at the site was going on. He claimed that this extra work was done under verbal orders of the Engineers on the spot. The Department did not accept this claim. It was of the opinion that this work was a part of the work provid ed for in the contract and, hence, no extra payment could be claimed.

(2.) On 24/5/1966, the contractor moved an application for reference of this dispute to the arbitration of the Chief Engineer, L. S. G. E. D., as pro vided by clause 24 of the contract bond. Clause 24 provided that the decision of the Chief Engineer shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the contract upon all ques tions, including questions of claims in any way arising out of, or relating to the contract. The question whether this work of excavation of roots of trees was covered by the contract was clearly a dispute relating to the con tract and. hence, was capable of be ing referred to arbitration, in accord ance with the arbitration clause.

(3.) On 5/10/1966, the Chief Engi neer gave his award, rejecting the claim of the contractor. The State Government made an application under Sec. 14 of the Arbitration Act, pray ing that the award be filed in court. The contractor, on the other hand, made an application under Sec. 33 of the Act, with a prayer that the award be declared invalid. Both the matters were consolidated together and disposed of by a common judgment. The court below held that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence on the re cord and the legal aspect of the matter, the excavation of the roots of trees from the site was not a part of the original contract dated 18th March. 1963. It was an independent work, not covered by the said contract. The arbitrator had no jurisdiction to give an award regarding the dispute about this extra work; and, consequently, the award was illegal and invalid.