I.P.MUKERJI,J. - (1.) This is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996. It is made by the Union of India. It challenges an undated award said to have been received by the Union of India on 19th December, 2012. Mr. P.S. Bose, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, knows how to place an application to set aside an award, most efficiently. An award ought to be attacked on specific points and as briefly as possible. The Court hearing an application of this nature is not a court of appeal. Mr. Bose conducts Section 34 applications in the way they should be, making the burden of the Court, much lighter. In this application also, he has done so with the same skill.
(2.) He attacked the award made in claims 4 and 6. The contract underlying the arbitration agreement was a very usual works contract between the parties. In claim No. 4 the respondent claimant claimed the value of extra cost amounting to Rs. 25,30,960/- said to have been incurred by them during the period for which the contract was extended, for maintaining the establishment. The claim was allowed in its entirety by the learned Arbitrator. Claim no. 6 of the respondent was for Rs. 6,87,980/- claiming the wages allegedly paid by them to their labour during the period of delay. It was allowed to the extent of Rs. 4,34,430/-. Mr. Bose relied on Clause 17(A) (ii) of the terms and conditions of the contract. Under these terms and conditions, no compensation was payable to the respondent for the delay in the completion of the work, on any ground whatsoever. Mr. Bose argued that when the contract was extended, it was so done on the same terms and conditions, including the terms of payment unless specifically stated otherwise.
(3.) In my opinion, Mr. Bose is absolutely correct. The arbitrator was bound to follow the terms of the contract between the parties. The terms did not permit grant of compensation, irrespective of fault of any party. This point was specifically taken before the learned arbitrator as would appear at page 24 of the award. The learned arbitrator could not have granted compensation on his own.;