HIMACHAL PRADESH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS PROJECT OFFICER Vs. ROOP DASS CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these Appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) Material facts necessary for the adjudication of these appeals are that agreements were entered between the appellant-corporation and respondent. Respondent raised bills; however, the amount was not paid to him. In these circumstances, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator in all the awards has awarded simple interest @ 12% per annum for delayed payment and future simple interest @ 18% per annum from the date of award till the date of realisation. Thereafter, objections were filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for brevity sake) against the awards made by the Arbitrator before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla. He dismissed the same on 1.1.2011. It is in these circumstances, the present appeals have been filed under section 37 of the Act.

(3.) Mr. S.R. Sharma has strenuously argued that the Arbitrator has erred in law by awarding simple interest @ 12% per annum at the pre-arbitration stage and @ 18% per annum post-award till the realisation of the amount. He also contended that the learned Arbitrator and the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court have further erred in law by treating the appellant-corporation as principal employer under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.