T.K.Basu, J. - (1.) THE point involved in this appeal lies within a very short compass. THE appeal is directed against a judgment and order of K. L. Roy. J. dated the 10th November, 1971 by which the learned trial Judge dismissed an application made by the appellant under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), containing the usual prayers for the filing of the arbitration agreement and appointment of arbitrator or arbitrators by this Court. In the original petition a prayer for the revocation of the authority of the respondent No. 2 to appoint an arbitrator under Section 5 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was made. We are however not concerned with that prayer in this appeal.
(2.) THE contract out of which the present appeal arises was concluded between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 by the usual method of offer and acceptance of a tender with regard to the construction of certain buildings at Sin-ghee Park, Calcutta. Clause 25 of the Contract contains the usual arbitration clause to the following effect:-- "Except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specifications, intimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the person appointed by the "Additional Chief Engineer, Central Public Works Department....." There is no dispute and in fact the learned trial Judge has found that this arbitration clause is of the widest possible amplitude. The dispute which is now sought to be referred to arbitration arises in the following way.
(3.) IT appears that on the 10th September, 1969 one Manick Singh made a complaint before the Labour Welfare Officer under Clauses 12 and 13 of the Central Public Works Department Labour Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) alleging that he was engaged as a sub-contractor and as such a sub-contractor he had engaged certain labourers from time to time. Out of the total amounts payable to those labourers. he had mot received the whole amount but only a part thereof. The claims of ten of his employees were also forwarded to the Labour Welfare Officer. The Labour Welfare Officer held an enquiry and by his award dated the 31st December, 1969 he rejected the claim of Manik Singh and allowed the claim of the other workers. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal against the award before the Regional Labour Commissioner being the appellate authority under Clause 14 of the Regulations who by his order dated the 6th June, 1970 allowed the appeal in part and reduced the amount found due to the labourers to a sum of Rs. 2073.75 paise and directed the petitioner to pay the said sum within ten days from the date of the order.;