SADHU SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 the petitioner has challenged the award dated 10th May, 1996 passed by M. P. Arbitration Tribunal in Reference Case No. 177/91, wherein the petitioner's entire claim for an amount of Rs. 5 lacs pertaining to balance payment of earthwork, escalation of labour wages and POL, security deposit and earnest money is disallowed and rejected with an exception of refund of Rs. 198. 44 as balance of earnest money.

(2.) IT is not disputed that under an Agreement No. 47/dl 78-79 with Water Resources Department of Govt. of India, earthwork (balance work) in Chainage Nos. 723 to 724, 725 to 727, 761 to 762. 50 and 766 to 777 of Tilwara Left Bank Canal of Upper Wainganga Project was given to petitioner Sadhu Singh, the amount of item rate contract was Rs. 3,33,059 the work order was issued on 20. 04. 1979 with period of contract as 6 months excluding rainy season and that the stipulated date of completion was 19th January, 1980, whereas the work was completed in March 1982.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, some piece workers executed some work prior to the agreement executed in favour of petitioner and the existing levels on work site at commencement of the work by the petitioner were not in conformity with levels shown in the departmental books because the levels of the work done by other agencies were shown at lower level, resulting in excess payment to piece workers. Though the actual readings of the levels were intimated by the petitioner to the department, yet the value of the work done by the petitioner was not paid to him. His claims for payment of balance work, loss of damages suffered, refund of security deposit and earnest money submitted to Superintendent Engineer, were rejected by S. E. on 18. 04. 1985. On objection being raised by the petitioner, the S. E. deputed Shri A. K. Das and Shri S. K. Shukla, Asstt. Engineers to take measurements of total work done afresh so that the work done by piece workers and the petitioner could be separately assessed. In the absence of graph M. B. , Shri Das and Shri Shukla, Asstt. Engineers, recorded ground levels as per actuals. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that if starting levels as per graph M. B. were considered, the total quantity of earthwork done by petitioner would have come to 47,692 cu. mts. and he should have been paid for balance quantity after deducting the payment made for 24,719. 791 cu. mts. which was the earthwork executed by the piece workers. On being referred by Executive Engineer for final decision by letter dated 03. 11. 1989, the Suptd. Engineer examined the facts and informed the petitioner that no payment was outstanding which persuaded him to make a reference to the tribunal.