SURATGARH GOODS HANDLING SHRAMIK THEKA SAHAKARI SAMITI LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT , J. -

(2.) THE petitioner M/s. Suratgarh Goods Handling Shramik THEka Sahakari Samiti Limited has filed this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 against the respondents-UOI through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi for referring the disputes between the parties to the sole arbitration of the General Manager of the Railway Administration concerned as per the arbitration clause being Clause No. 31 of the contract between the parties which was for the purpose of performing of the work of parterages of goods (loading, unloading and otherwise handling the goods) at Suratgarh/TY. This contract was dated 7-5-1981 and was deemed to have come into force with effect from 27-4-1981 and was to remain in force for a period of three years ending 26-4-1984 unless otherwise determined under any provision of this contract. Certain disputes are alleged to have cropped up between the parties and it is alleged that notwithstanding all efforts of the petitioner to resolve the same, those disputes are still subsisting for which reason the petitioner has been le't with on alternative but to invoke the aforesaid arbitration clause of the agreement. THEse disputes have been set out as Claims Nos. 1 to 14 in para 5 of the petition.

(3.) CLAIM No. 9 This pertains to the claim of Rs. 4,000 approximately on account of revised rates asserting that from 1-5-1982 to 20-6-1982 rates were revised but the department did not make the payment. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the question of revision of rates could not arise because the petitioner had already tendered resignation before completion of one year from the date of the agreement and Clause 4(ii) of the agreement provided for the consideration for the revision of rates only after the expiry of one year of the contract. Clause No. 4(ii) does provide for the revision of rates after every 12 months. The contention raised by the respondent in its written statement regarding this claim has been controverted in the rejoinder and so evidence would be required on the questions of fact involved regarding the alleged resignation of the petitioner or whether the department had revised the rates or not from 1-5-1982 to 20-6-1982 as asserted by the petitioner. Moreover, Clause 4(ii) of the contract providing for the review of rates after every 12 months would require construction and interpretation as to whether the rates could be revised by the department only after the expiry of 12 months or even prior thereto. Under these circumstances, it is for the arbitrator to decide this matter and this claim cannot be said to be an 'expected matter' outright.