K. Kannan, J. - (1.) The revision brings a challenge to the correctness of the order made in arbitral proceedings initiated under the Arbitration Act of 1940. The petitioner is the contractor of civil works who had been awarded contract for civil construction of married accommodation at Nahan. The contract was awarded on 19.04.1969 and was required to be completed before 02.08.1970. There had been periodical extensions and after completion of the portion of work, the contractor raised a dispute as regards the payments not fully made for the work done, but when the work was not completed, within the time stipulations and the extensions of time given, the Chief Engineer Northway Zone acting on behalf of the Union, served notice of cancellation on 08.08.1973.
(2.) The petitioner engaged the Union in volley of demands, questioned the cancellation and reiterated the appointment of Arbitrator for appraisal of his claims already made and for fresh claims through the notice issued on 09.02.1973. Col. Gurdial Singh was appointed as the Arbitrator on 24.12.1973. There have been periodical appointments of Arbitrators in succession, some of them having resigned just soon after commencement of work, some without doing any work, till when the Court of the Sub Judge, 1st Class Chandigarh intervened in an application filed by the contractor under Sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act by appointing Mr. O.P. Gupta as Arbitrator in the application No. 268 to the order dated 05.04.1994. The Arbitrator gave an award on 27.08.1996 allowing for Rs. 25,46,000/ - as the amount payable to the contractor by the Union. This award admitted some of the claims while rejecting some.
(3.) The award of the Arbitrator as well as his appointment culminated through challenges before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos. 18521, 18522, 18897 and 18898 of 1996. The Supreme Court through its order dated 12.08.1997 disposed of all the SLPs and directed the Chief Justice of this Court to himself hear the case sitting in a Division Bench and that the Bench would not be bound by any previous order passed by any other Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench proceeded to dispose of the civil revision in Civil Revision No. 1685 of 1994 on 31.01.2000 and the narration made in this case shall, therefore, be taken as truly reflective of the respective contentions of parties and the manner of how the judicial course has followed. Through this order dated 31.01.2000, the Division Bench was directing the matter to be considered by the Court of competent jurisdiction to consider the award of the Arbitrator. The issues considered were: i) Regarding appointment of Sh.O.P. Gupta as sole arbitrator; ii) Regarding extension of time granted before the arbitrator to the petitioners and iii) Such objections as were permitted to be heard by Division Bench by the orders of the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held, dismissing the petition of the Union objecting to the appointment of OP Gupta that petitions filed under Ss. 5 and 11 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the objections filed to making the award the rule of court shall be heard and decided by the trial court. In other words, the Division Bench order was only limited to affirming the order of the trial court in so far as the appointment of Shri OP Gupta as the arbitrator and all the objections to the award, such as biased conduct or otherwise of the arbitrator was directed to be heard and decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. The order did not make any reference to any objection of the Union as regards the arbitrability of any dispute as barred by limitation. II. The last phase of the journey through courts;