JUDGMENT
Gurusharan Sharma, J.
1. In respect of contract agreement No. 1/S.M.C./87-88 dated 23rd September, 1987, for construction of Aquaduct at k.m. 2.77 of Chandil left bank canal under Subarnrekha Multipurpose Project, the Contractor, M/s. Mukherjee Brothers raised certain claims, which were referred to Sri M.C. Chopra. the sole Arbitrator, under arbitration clause of the said agreement.
2. On 14.6.1991 the Arbitrator, who was Chief Engineer, Subarnrekha Canal Division, Jamshedpur, submitted award, wherein claim Nos. 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were allowed in part and a total amount of Rs. 11,99,500/- was awarded. Both. Executive Engineer as well as M/s. Mukherjee Brothers filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. 1940, to the Award respectively on 7.8.1992 and 21.8.1992.
2. By impugned judgment/ order dated 19th September, 1994. First Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur. has set aside the Award. It was observed that, in fact, the contract period was for two years and there was delay of few days in supply of materials and payment of bill on some occasions, which took place due to un- avoidable circumstances and in usual course of business.
3. The Arbitrator did not consider clause No. 48 and wrongly allowed Rs. 5,64,000/- as damages and loss of idling of labour and machineries during strike period. If there was strike of Government employees the department had no control over it and it was also not possible to avoid it. So the Award in relation to damages and loss of idling of labour and machineries due to the strike of the Government employees was not justified.
4. In respect of claim Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10, the Arbitrator failed to take into consideration clause No. 4.2.0. It related to idling of labour and concrete unit. In view of clause No. 4.2.0, the contractor was not entitled to claim for the same.
5. So far as the claim No. 10 is concerned, in this regard reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited v. Rajasthan Eastern Engineering Enterprises, AIR 1999 SC 3627, wherein, it was observed that Award made by the Arbitrator disregarding the terms of reference or arbitration agreement or terms of contract would be a
jurisdictional error, which requires, ultimately, to be decided by the Court. The Arbitrator cannot award the amount which is ruled out or prohibited by terms of the agreement. Because of the specific bar stipulated by the parties in the agreement in the present case, the aforesaid claim could not have been raised. Such claim amount could not have been awarded as agreement was binding on the parties and the arbitrator had to adjudicate as per the agreement.
6. On the ratio of the decision of the
Apex Court in Rajasthan State Mines and
Minerals Limited, (supra). I find no reason
to interfere with the impugned judgment/
award. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed,
but without costs. Lower court records may
be sent down.