Harish Tandon, J. - (1.) The challenge is made to an award made and published on 17th March, 2006 by the Arbitrators allowing the part of the claims of the Petitioner and counter claims of the Respondent herein. In other words, by the said award the Petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 7,48,56,134/ - to the Respondent together with interest @ 18% per annum on the amount from the date of the award till payment apart from the costs and expenses for the arbitration.
(2.) The facts revealed from the respective stands of the parties before the Arbitrator and before this Court are adumbrated herein below: - - (i) The Petitioner being the claimant published a tender notice dated 5/6th August, 1996 inviting applications from the experienced contractors who can handle the iron and steel materials at the Petitioner's stockyard located at Paharpur, 20 Coal berth and DP -II sighting of Kolkata Branch Sales Office of the Petitioner. (ii) The eligibility criterion enshrined in the said tender notice was that the contractor should be capable of handling iron and steel materials of minimum quantity of 1.25 lacs metric tons (MT) during any of the last financial years. (iii) The period of contract shall be initially for two years which can be extended at the sole discretion/option of the Petitioner for further period of one year. (iv) The Respondent participated in the said tender and submitted the relevant papers and documents having fulfilled all the criterion enshrined under the said tender notice. (v) After proper scrutiny the Petitioner awarded the contract to the Respondent to commence from 23rd November, 1996. (vi) Clause 9 of the Contract clearly provides that the contract labourers employed in Paharpur stockyard shall not be deployed as it would contravene the order of the High Court passed on 24th July, 1995 in FMAT 1460 of 1984 directing the parties to maintain status quo in relation to such employment. (vii) The Respondent asked for furnishing a statement of workers working in the said stockyard which was responded by the Petitioner in providing a list of over 560 workers already employed since last several years in the Paharpur stockyard. The disputes were raised during the initial period of the contract not only on the excess payment made towards the wages to large number of contractual labourers who are not covered under an order of the High Court in the said appeal but also on non -providing the estimated quantities of the materials during the first 17 (seventeen) months and causing huge losses and damages to the Respondent. (viii) The parties exhausted their remedy before the Arbitral Tribunal and an award was passed in favour of the Respondent to the tune of Five Crore and odd together with interest and costs to the proceeding which was assailed under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before this Court. (ix) The said application was allowed upon setting aside the award which is further challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and the matter is still pending. (x) After the expiration of the initial term of the contract, the Petitioner unilaterally extended the period for one year and the present arbitration proceeding was initiated relating to the dispute arose during the said extended period. (xi) The present arbitration proceeding originated from a claim of damages on alleged non -performance by the Respondent between the period from 23rd November, 1996 to 31st March, 1999 and the claim was further enhanced for the extended period.
(3.) As it appears from the impugned award the Petitioner's claim were made under the following heads, namely unpaid wages to the contract labourers, dues on account of the provident funds of those labourers, unpaid gratuity from 23rd November, 1996, non -payment of privileged leave salary from 23.11.1996, interest on outstanding advances, liquidated damages, contingent liabilities, compensation for workmen and losses due to total stoppage in delivery of materials from the said stockyard for the period from 01.01.1999 to 31.03.1999.;