BHEL RAMCHANDRAPURAM MEDAK DISTRICT Vs. P K GOPINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil miscellaneous appeal and the civil revision petition arise out of the common judgment dated 29. 10. 1999 passed in OP no. 43 of 1993 and OS No. 241 of 1993 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, whereby and where under the learned senior Civil Judge made the award dated 31. 7. 1993 passed by the arbitrator as a rule of Court while dismissing OP No. 43 of 1993 filed under Section 30 of Indian Arbitration act to set aside the award passed by the arbitrator.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy raised in the present proceedings, the relevant facts may be stated, in brief : bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, ramachandrapuram (hereinafter referred to as the employer) issued tender notice bearing no. SSO/mw/79 for the work of breaking cast iron scrap and loading the same into dumper. In response thereto, P. Gopinathan (hereinafter referred to as the claimant)offered his tender. His tender came to be accepted by the employer, which ultimately resulted in execution of the agreement bearing No. SSO/fdy/79, dated 5. 5. 1979. Under the said agreement, the claimant was to execute the work of breaking cast iron scarp and loading the same into bumper in the premises of the employer. The quantity of work stipulated was 1,000 MT. The claimant was to be paid @ Rs. 68/- per mt of the completed work. The period stipulated was from 1. 4. 1979 to 31. 3. 1980 or completion of the total quantity of 1,000 mt, whichever is earlier. On 5. 2. 1980 at about 10. 00 a. m. , the employer found the labour engaged by the claimant collecting iron rods from the yard stock and showing them as day's work for the purpose of weighment. The employer issued notice to the claimant on 7. 2. 1980 calling for his explanation as to why the contract should not be terminated. The claimant issued reply on 15. 2. 1980 and ultimately, the employer terminated the contract on 11. 3. 1980. The claimant sought for reference to the arbitrator for settlement of the disputes arose in respect of the execution of the work contract. There being no response from the employer, the claimant filed OP No. 44 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, medak at Sangareddy. The said OP came to be allowed on 9. 3. 1983. Sri A. R. N. Rao was appointed as sole arbitrator. The said arbitrator could not complete the arbitration and therefore in his place of Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy was appointed as arbitrator. The claimant filed claim statement claiming various amounts under 8 heads as detailed hereunder: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_500_ALD5_2009Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) THE employer filed counter before the arbitrator resisting the claims made by the claimant under various heads. It is stated in the counter that the agreement executed between the parties is in respect of work contract and not labour contract. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to the value of the work, which he executed as on the date of termination of the contract. It is further stated in the counter that the claimant included certain items, which are allegedly in respect of the three contracts bearing Nos. CEF/39/79-80. CEF/40/79-80 and CEF/41/79-80, which are in no way connected with the contract in respect of which appointment of arbitrator has been sought for in OP No. 44 of 1981. The employer also contended in the counter that the labour engaged by the claimant resorted to collecting pieces already broken by the department and showing them as day's work for the purpose of weighment which fact was admitted by the claimant in his letter dated 29. 2. 1980 and that the claimant refused to collect the tools which were brought to the factory premises and therefore, he was not entitled to claim any amount either towards the value of the tools and plants or hire charges.