Prakash Tatia, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 6th September, 1999, passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer, by which the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer dismissed the petitioner's application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner submitted its offer for the work in pursuance of the notice inviting tender and at that time the minimum wages for the labour was Rs. 22/ - per day. This minimum wage was increased by the Government Notification dt. 12th July, 2004 to Rs. 34/ - per day. It is also submitted that since the rate was increased statutorily by the Government and as per the term of the contract, the petitioner was bound to pay the minimum wages to the labour, therefore, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case Tarapore & Co. v. : [1994]1SCR1012 the dispute with respect to the claim of enhanced rate of labour is covered by the arbitration agreement. It is also submitted that even whether the claim is covered by the arbitration agreement, is a subject -matter which can be decided by the arbitrator and the Court below should have appointed the arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act, 1996.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the non -petitioner submitted that the petitioner accepted the final amount and gave certificate of full and final satisfaction of his claim, therefore, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court which was followed by this Court in the case of Mahesh Chand v. Union of India and Ors., 2002 WLC UC 399, the petitioner's alleged dispute cannot be referred to the arbitrator. It is also submitted that not only this, but the petitioner raised his claim after inordinate delay of 3 years from the time of his accepting the final amount. Apart from it, according to the learned Counsel for the non -petitioner, in view of the Condition No. 9.1, it is clear that there is no contract of payment of enhanced rate on the ground of increase in minimum wages. In view of the above, since there is no contract of payment of enhanced rate of labour to the petitioner and, therefore, the dispute is not covered under Clause 64 of the Contract.;