^t ^ HIGNCOURTOFCHHATTISGAR3-1ATBILASPUR DIVISiONBENCH -.;11:-. .":1.; CORAM: HON'BLE SHR! JAGDSSH 8HALLA, Ag. CJ. & HON'BLESHRISATSSHK.AGNJHOTRJ,J. CJviSRevislonNo. 157 of 2006 Petitioner Non-ADDiicants Resoondents 1. 2. Satyanarayan AgrawaJ, S/o Late Kashi Ram ^grawal,, aged about 52 years, A-3 Ciass ContraGtor, R/o - Katka Road, Surajpur, District Sarguja(C.G;). Versys 1 State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, | Water Resources Oepartment,] D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). SupQrintending Engineer, Water Resources Department, Imgation Cjrcle, Ambtkapur, Distt. Sarguja Executive | Engineer, , Water Resources Department, Imgation Divislon, Surajpur, Distt. Sarguja .1(C.GJ.:1.-;.:!:,;/:1,.:^,;:^^ CivilRevisJonU/s19ofChhattisaarhArbitrationAct, Present: Shri V.R.Rao, Senlor Advocate wth Shri Sanjay Agrawai.Gounseiforthepetjtioner. ShriG.D.Waswani,GovemmentAdvocatefortheState. 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 15th October, 2007) The foilowlng oraf onder of the CQurt was passed by Hon'ble Jagdish Bhalla, Ag. C.J. This Clvil Revision arises out of Arbitration proceedings in Reference Petition No.9/2005 before the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, RaJpUr, decjded on 1 8.0T .2006 whereby the ciaim of the revisionistwasrejecfed. Tyii'jSW r. ;: :1 !t has been submitted on behaif of the revjsionist that fair wages were paid to theworkmen bythe contractor/ revision no dispute of fair wages at ai!. it has been further submitted thatthe department has failed toprovide 3,000 cementbags atthesiteof executiGn of the work, however, the department has perm contractor/revisionlstto procure 3.000 cementbags^^^fo In^agreement. The ciaim of the rsvisjonist before the Arbitration Tribunal is oftwo fold; firstiy, since there was no dispute o^^^^^ reference has been wrongly decided, secondly as fer as cement bags are concemed, vaiue o? Rs.61/« per bag has been fixed; h^ Rs.10/- e)dra wascharged for carting the samefrom Ambikapur, where the same was purchased, to the site m agreement,. Learned Arbitration Tribynal has taken into consideration the conduct of the revlsionist whereby the revislonist / contractor had not compieted the work, though the time was essence of the contract and he used delaying tactics. Th&Jribunal came to the conclusion that aithough various correspondence has been brought 6n record, the crucial evidence with regard to actua! payment of wages to the workmen/ labourers was not produced. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly come to the conciusion that the revisionist could have brought the crucia! material on record. We also flnd that had thepayment re^ labourers been brought on record; the revjsjonist couid have proved his case. Before this Court ih thls revision petition noground has been taken with respect to the amount of cement bags. However, in the facts, it has been referred by the revisionistthat he lead amount of Rs.3,26,594/-. Learned counsel for the revisionist faJledtoshowfromtheawardoftheTribunalthatthepoJntj.eRs.71/- was Inciusive of transportation charges, which was argued before us, r subbu ^ ^ -3- was also argued before the Tribunal. No affidavit has been fiied on behajf of the revisionist indicating that the point was argued before the Tribunai, but could not be considered by the Tribunai. Stnce the said point has not been discussed by the Tribunal, the only natural conclusion wouid be that the same was not argued before the Tribunal. in light of the above, no interference is warranted in this matter. The revision petition is dismissed. Sd/- Ag.ChiefJustice Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge