C.R. No.3790 of 1997 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.3790 of 1997 Date of decision:08.09.2010 State of Punjab through Executive Engineer, Ghanauli Constructions Division, S.Y.L. Canal Project Ropar ..... Petitioner Versus M/s Shivalik Construction Company, Village Taunsa, P.O.Railmajra, District Hoshiarpur ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Ms.Anu Pal, AAG, Punjab for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** RAJIVE BHALLA, J. The revision has been filed by the State of Punjab, challenging the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Ropar dated 26.02.1997, dismissing the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Ropar dated 17.07.1995. The respondent was awarded a contract for construction of the Satluj-Yamuna link canal from RD 12.650 to 13.000 K.M. Upon conclusion of the work, the respondent applied for appointment of an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator so appointed, pronounced an award on 10.06.1993 accepting four but rejecting one of the claims filed by the respondent. The respondent filed objections before the Senior Sub Judge, Roopnagar, with respect to the rejected portion of his claim. Upon notice, the State of Punjab filed a reply refuting the objections but alleging that the award should be set aside. The Senior Sub Judge, Roopnagar, dismissed the objections filed by both parties, made the award a rule of the court and consequently, passed C.R. No.3790 of 1997 -2- a decree for Rs.1,22,941/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the award till realization of the decretal amount. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the State of Punjab, filed an appeal primarily urging that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award any amount @ Rs.20.69 per cubic metre for the extra work of removal of silt. The District Judge, Roopnagar dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by awarding Rs.20.69 per cubic metre for removal of silt. In the contract, extra work is to be paid @ Rs.15.42 per cubic meter. The Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to calculate extra work at a rate contrary to the rate set out in the contract. Neither the respondent nor any counsel has put in appearance on his behalf. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. The plea raised by counsel for the petitioner, that for extra work payment is to be made at CSR rates i.e. Rs.15.42 cannot be accepted. The Senior Sub Judge and the District Judge, have recorded concurrent findings of fact, after perusing the work order dated 24.06.1985 that the clause relating to any other work requires payment @ CSR rates plus SP. The Arbitrator was therefore, justified in awarding Rs.20.69 for the additional work of removal of silt. The interpretation assigned to the clause providing for payment for extra work and the amount so calculated does not disclose any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrator or error of jurisdiction by the courts below. I find no error of law or of jurisdiction as would require interference. The revision is therefore, dismissed. 08.09.2010 [ RAJIVE BHALLA ] shamsher JUDGE