- (1.) Deoki Nandaii Prasad, J.
(2.) THIS Misc. Appeal under Section 39(1)(vi) of the Arbitration Act arise out of the judgment and decree passed by Shri Suresh Prasad Sinha, Sub -Judge III. Jamshedpur in Title Suit No. 66 of 1980. whereby and whereunder the learned Judge made the Award, Rule of the Court. The short facts giving rise to this appeal that a contract agreement No. 1/Tata/ INC/CON/ACR/71 date 6.10.1971 was entered into between the Union of India represented by S.E. Railway and M/s. Hiralal and Co., contractors for construction of 24 units type I, 40 Ur Type II, 5 units type III quarters at Tatanagar Railway Station at an approximate value of Rs. 833917/ - and finally worked out to Rs. 796893/ -. Work was to be completed by 31.12.1972. The date of completion was extended at the contractors request to 30.11.1974. Accordingly a supplementary agreement was signed by the claimant. All the payments due to the claimants were released totaling Rs. 800412/ - as well as the security deposit of Rs. 76288/ - was also released. After receiving full amount of contract, the Contractor referred two Arbitrators for another sum of Rs. 14,31274/ - plus interest. The claimants entered into supplementary agreement with the South Eastern Railway for extending the date of completion and variation in quantities voluntarily and agreed to execute the work at rates, terms, conditions as laid down in the contract agreement. Ultimately, the tenders submitted by the claimants was accepted as lowest tender and accordingly the formal agreement was entered into. Certain materials such as Cement, Steel requisites for the construction work were to be supplied by the Railway. Since, the work could not be completed within the stipulated date the last extension for completion of the work was given by the Railway till 30.11.1974 and accordingly, it was completed within the said period. It is claimed by the claimant that due to delay in completion of work for about two years, there had been a statutory increase in the minimum wages of labour fixed by the State Government from time to time as also abnormal rise in the price of the materials consumed in the work and the claimant/plaintiff suffered loss and therefore claimed additional payment on account of statutory increase in the wages of the labour as also escalation in the cost of the materials. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator for coming to the conclusion in terms of the agreement led down between the parties.
(3.) THE plaintiff submitted detailed claim before the Arbitrators for a total sum of Rs. 14,31,274/ - whereas the Railway contested the claims before the arbitrator and after hearing both sides, the Arbitrator prepared the award for a total sum of Rs. 3,72,333/ -. The Railway also contested the said award in the court below and after hearing both sides and considering the evidences on record, the court below affirmed the Award and made the same rule of the Court, hence, this appeal.;