1 THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Arb. Appeal No.2 of 2002 Date of decision 22.10.2008 Pawan Kumar …Appellant. Versus Dr. Y.S. Parmar University & anr …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh Whether approved for reporting?1 . For the Appellant: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.B.S. Attri, Advocate. Per Surjit Singh, J (Oral) This arbitration appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge of this court whereby allowing the objections of respondents, in respect of one of various items of claim, the learned Single Judge has set aside award so far as it pertains to the said item. 2. Relevant facts may be summed up thus. Respondent Dr.Y.S. Parmar University awarded a contract to the appellant for execution of certain work. Clause 25 of the contract provided for settlement of disputes, arising between the parties by way of arbitration. Clause 10 (c ) of the contract provided for payment of extra money to the appellant on account of escalation of cost of material and wages of labour. This clause 10 (c ) provided that the claim with 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment? yes 2 respect to escalation of cost of material and increase in wages of labour shall be considered by the Estate Officer and his decision in the matter would be final. 3. Some disputes arose between the parties. Appellant approached Arbitrator. He made claims on account of various items including escalation of cost of material and increase in labour wages Arbitrator awarded different amounts of money under different items of claim. He awarded a sum of Rs. 4,57,397/- on account of escalation of cost of material and increase in labour wages. 4. Respondents filed objections under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in this court. One of the objection raised by them was that the award given by the Arbitrator on account of escalation of cost of material and increase in labour wages was without jurisdiction inasmuch as this kind of dispute was not referable to the Arbitrator, but was required to be determined by the Estate Officer as per clause 10 (c ) of the contract. Learned Single Judge accepted this objection and set aside the award in respect of the aforesaid item for escalation of cost of material and increase in labour charges. It is against this part of the order of the learned Single Judge that the present appeal is directed. 5. The only submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the amount of Rs. 4,57,397/- awarded by the Arbitrator was not on account of escalation of cost of material and increase in labour charges, but on account of damages. We have gone through the award of the Arbitrator which is available on the record of the learned Single Judge and find that the aforesaid amount of money was awarded specifically on account of escalation in prices of material and wages of labour. It is not disputed by the learned counsel that 3 arbitration clause 25 excluded this kind of claim and that such claims were required to be settled under clause 10 (c ) only. In view of the aforesaid position, there is no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J ( Surjit Singh ),J. 22nd October, 2008 (sl)