- (1.) THE petitioner has taken out this application for setting aside the award dt. 6th Mar., 1985 on several grounds set out in para 20 of the petition. THE award is for Rs. 5,50,000/- in favour of the respondent and is a non-speaking award.
(2.) THE main claim of the respondent was for idle labour. It was alleged that Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid by the respondent by way of advance to the labourers but no work could be done as the land was not made available to the respondent by the petitioner for filling up the same with good earth. To obtain possession of these lands, the petitioner was to pay compensation to the owners of the land and to hand over the same to the respondent but the petitioner had failed and neglected to pay the owners for which no work could be proceeded with. Another claim was for Rs. 1,00,000/- for labourers sitting idle from 19th Jan., 1983 due to the fact that the petitioner failed to finalise payment with the bargadars and local plot holders who obstructed and suspended the work of the respondent resulting in heavy loss as aforesaid. THE third claim for idle labour for Rs. 1,00,000/- was on the ground that earth could not be excavated from 24-1-1984 due to the obstruction by the local people as the petitioner had failed to pay 15% of their compensation as agreed between them which resulted in labourers sitting idle. In respect of respondent's claims for idle labour to the extent of Rs. 4,50,000/- the petitioner attacked the award on the following ground :- "For that the arbitrator purported to make an award on improper evidence or inadmissible or inadequate evidence which is contrary to the principle of law of evidence." But the Evidence Act is not applicable to arbitration proceeding. The arbitrator has to follow the principles of natural justice in conducting the arbitration proceeding. It is not for the Court to judge whether the evidence before the arbitrator was improper or inadmissible or inadequate. The arbitrator was the sole Judge of the law and of the facts. If he had taken the decision on the basis of whatever evidence was on record and had allowed the claim, his award cannot be challenged on the basis of inadequacy or inadmissibility or impropriety of evidence, particularly when both the parties had the full opportunity to argue their respective cases and adduce evidence. Total absence of evidence or arbitrator's failure to take into consideration a very material document on record or admission of the parties in arriving at the finding are however good grounds for challenging the proceeding for legal misconduct of the arbitrator.
(3.) THE second attack on the award that the claim for idle labour due to local resistances or disturbances beyond the control of the petitioner was expressly excluded by Cl.19 of the contract. Hence this claim could not be entertained by the arbitrator as it was beyond the scope of the arbitration. THE arbitrator acted without jurisdiction in entertaining this claim. In my opinion, whether the situation was created due to any act of the petitioner or not certainly could be investigated by the arbitrator.;