Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. - (1.) UNION of India has made this application for setting aside the first award dated 4th August, 1966 and the final award dated 24th August, 1968 made after the said first award was remitted by the Court to the arbitrator. The Arbirator was one O. P. Mittal, Engineer-Member, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi and formerly Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) Central Public Works Department.
(2.) BY an agreement in writing dated 16th October, 1949 the respondent National Builders agreed to execute the construction of administrative block of India Government Mint at Alipore in Calcutta. In course of execution of the said contract various disputes arose between the parties and the Additional Chief Engineer, Central P. W. D., New Delhi, appointed the said O. P. Mittal, Superintending Engineer, (Arbitration) as Arbitrator and sent to the said Arbitrator along with his letter dated 27th November, 1958 a Schedule wherein the claims of the respondent were tabulated and against each item thereof, an issue was framed for his determination. The short point involved, in this application is whether the arbitrator was obliged to make his award showing the determination of each of the issues and answering them in the manner it was raised before him. Some of the relevant claims and the respective issues raised in respect thereto are set out below to appreciate the nature of the terms of reference submitted to the Arbitrator by the said Additional Chief Engineer: PART I CLAIMS ISSUES 1. The contractor was paid reduced rates for using inferior bricks. The contractor claims payment for first class bricks as they were supplied departmentally (Item No. 4) Whether inferior bricks were used on the work, if so, the reduction in rate that should be effected. 5. The contractor used vibrator for providing concrete of good quality. He claims extra for vibration of concrete (Hem No. 31) Whether extra rate is admissible for vibrated concrete, if so, how much. 9. 200 sq. ft. area of mosaic flooring done originally with grey cement was dismantled and replaced with white cement (Item No. 62) Whether dismantling was done on the instruction of the department, whether any payment is due and if. so, amount involved. 10. The contractor claims payment for 1" thick red Patent Stone flooring done in Gold weighment room at Rs. 150/- per sq. ft. (Item No. 63) Whether payment is still due for this work and if so, how much. 12. The contractor claims that the measurement cannot be taken in ft, -inch for this item (Item No. 66) Whether measurement can be taken in ft. -inch for this item and if any relief is called for. PART II 3. The contractor claims payment for brick work done in recesses and chases in brick work for which deduction was made (Item No. 7) Whether the deduction made is justified.
(3.) THE contractor claims that R. C. C. slabs have not been measured correctly including the full bearing (item No. 9) Whether the measurement has been correctly recorded, if not, the excess quantity involved. 12. THE contractor claims that heavy compensation under clause (ii) is not justified. Whether the contractor had made himself liable for compensation under clause (ii). In the recital part of the said award dated 4th August, 1966, the said arbitrator, inter alia, referred to the letter dated 27th November, 1958 written by the Additional Chief Engineer, Central P. W. D. and the disputes is mentioned in the said letter and made his award, the relevant portion whereof read as follows : "2. After hearing and examining and considering the statements of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence produced before me by them and having given due consideration to all the facts and documents, I award as follows except as mentioned in paragraph 4. 3. In full and final settlement of all the disputes referred to me, the Union of India should pay to M/s. National Builders a sum of Rs. 31,270/- (Rupees Thirty-one thousand two hundred and seventy only)." In paragraph 4 of the said award the Arbitrator, inter alia, recorded that since the High Court had expressed reluctance to grant further extension of time to make the award and since the disputed item No. 4 of Part II would take sometime to decide the same he left undecided so that the same might be referred to the other Arbitrator who had been appointed by the Additional Chief Engineer in respect of some other disputes. As such he made the said award without deciding the said item. 4. After the said award was filed in court, the Union of India made an application for setting aside the award and upon hearing the parties the Court remitted the award to the said arbitrator for his decision in respect of the said disputed item No. 4 of Part II which was not decided by him for shortage of time. THE court directed that the award would not be placed in the list until five months from the date of the order. THE said arbitrator has since made another award in respect of the said item No. 4, Part II, the operative part whereof reads as follows ; "4. After hearing, examining and considering the statements of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence produced before me by them and having given due consideration to all the facts and documents. I award that the Union of India should pay to M/s. National Builders a sum of Rs. 3,142/- (Rupees three thousand one hundred forty-two) in full and final settlement of the dispute as given in Part I above. 5. THE parties will bear their own costs of reference." That award was signed by him on 24th August. 1968.;