SANDEEP MEHTA,J. - (1.) These two appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer in Civil Misc. Case Nos. 2/2000 and 3/2000 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected.
(2.) Facts in brief are that an arbitration award was passed on 3.11.1999 by the Arbitrator appointed by the parties in relation to a dispute inter-se between the appellant herein and the State Government for the settlement of claims filed by the respective parties in relation to the contract of lining executed by the appellant in the Indira Gandhi Canal R.D. Nos. 135 to 140 (Appeal No. 836/2001) and R.D. Nos. 80 to 85 (Appeal No. 548/2001). The appellant pleaded before the Arbitrator that as the place of work allocated to him fell within a distance of 16 Kms. from the Indo Pak Border, the appellant was entitled to 10% extra special allowance with interest over and above the terms of the contract towards the labour rate and transportation in terms of the B.S.R. The respondent State Government filed a reply stating that the contract between the parties was covered by the G-Schedule wherein there was no provision of additional 10% allowance. The Arbitrator rejected the claim filed by the appellant claiming the extra allowance and the interest thereupon for allegedly working near the border. The appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer which too was rejected by the order dated 17.2.2001. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim and the appeal and the denial of the monetary relief sought for, the appellant has approached this Court by way of these two appeals.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the department acted arbitrarily because another contractor who worked in the same area was paid 10% extra allowance as prescribed in the B.S.R. He submitted that the department did not disclose to the appellant that the work which was to be carried out by it was in an area falling with 16 Kms. from the Indo Pak Border. Thus, the department is guilty of concealing material facts and should be penalised for the same. Thus, he urged that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the appellant deserves to be granted 10% allowance in addition to the principal and interest thereupon in terms of the B.S.R.;