S. Acharya, J. - (1.)DISPUTE arose between both the parties to this appeal relating to 16 items of claim preferred by the Respondent against the Appellant. Both the parties referred the matter to Shri G.S. Panigrahi, Superintending Engineer, Eastern Circle for arbitration. Out of the 16 items of claim the arbitrator on hearing both the parties and on a consideration of the evidence adduced before him disallowed certain claims and partly allowed the claims in respect of the test. After the award was filed by the arbitrator in the Court below under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, the Appellant filed an objection before the Court below challenging the award only so far as it relates to item No. 4, on the ground that 'there is error of law apparent on the face of record'. The Respondent filed his counter to the State's objection and demanded payment of future interest on the amount assessed by the arbitrator. None of the parties adduced any evidence before the Court below, and the Court on hearing the parties rejected the Appellant's aforesaid objection and made the award a rule of the Court. The Court also rejected the claimant's demand for future interest. The State has preferred this appeal against the order of the Court below rejecting the State's aforesaid objection and the Respondent has filed a cross appeal on the Court's order rejecting the claimant's demand for future interest.
(2.)MR . Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Appellant urged that the arbitrator in arriving at his finding did not take into consideration a letter of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Rourkela to Shri S.P. Misra, Advocate, Keonjhar with the memo attached thereto which was filed before the arbitrator, and so his award suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of it. He further contends that the arbitrator misconducted himself by not taking into consideration the said material document.
The question of misconduct by the arbitrator was not alleged in the objection petition filed in the Court below nor urged by way of submission in that court, as is evident from the impugned order. In the memorandum of appeal in this Court no allegation of misconduct is alleged against the arbitrator. The award so far as it relates to item 4 was challenged only on the ground of error of law apparent on the face of it.

(3.)MR . Mohanty could neither draw my attention to any document on record nor could he produce an authentic copy of the aforesaid letter mentioned by him in support of his above submission. No step was taken to call for the same or any other document from the Court below to show that the said or any other document supporting the Appellant's contention was really filed before the arbitrator. The L.C.R. was received in this. Court since a long time, and if really any such document was filed before the arbitrator the Appellant's counsel should have taken steps to call for that document to support the factual aspect of his above -mentioned contention. In the objection petition filed in the Court below particulars of the said letter was not stated. There is nothing in the impugned order to indicate that the Court's attention was drawn to any such document at lease during the hearing of the object petition filed by the Appellant. There is nothing on record to show that any such document was ever filed before the arbitrator.
Mr. Roy, appearing for the Respondent produced before me a copy of letter dated 15th July, 1970 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Rourkela to Shri S.P. Misra, Advocate, Keonjhar with the memo No. 6493 dated 16 -7 -1970 attached thereto, and submitted that the Appellant possibly referred to this document. There in nothing in that document to support the Appellant's contention.