JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - Respondent obtained an award in his favour from the Arbitrator and applied to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuttack to make it a rule of the Court. The State of Orissa resisted the award on three grounds viz., (i) the claim entertained by the Arbitrator was out of time and thus barred by limitation. (ii) compensation had been given for additional work which was not covered by the arbitration clause and the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain that portion of the claim and (iii) the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest from the due date of payment to the contractor till the date of the decree. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge after hearing parties overruled the objections and made the award a rule of the Court. He, however, did not deal with the question of grant of future interest though an application for the same had been filed before the Court by the claimant. 3. The State of Orissa is in appeal reiterating its contentions against the award. A cross-objection has been filed by the claimant-Respondent to far as the claim for future interest is concerned which has not been granted by the learned Subordinate Judge. 4. The award assigned no reason and gave a lump sum amount as payable to the Respondent. It is well settled that where there is a lump award, it is not available to be separated and a portion of it cannot be found to be bad. Besides, it has now been settled on authority by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hindusthan Steel Ltd. v. P. Bonner ILR 1973 Cutt. 1218, that additional work can be taken to be a part of the principal work and the same arbitration clause would deem to be applied for disputes arising out of the additional work. Learned Standing Counsel agrees that the ground of limitation is not tenable. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, it is well settled that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to grant interest w here the entire dispute has been referred to him. In the circumstances, the grant of interest from due date till the date of the award is unquestionable. So far as the claim of interest is concerned, it is well settled that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to grant interest w here the entire dispute has been referred to him. In the circumstances, the grant of interest from due date till the date of the award is unquestionable. It has been decided in this Court that the Arbitrator has jurisdiction to make provision for award of interest until the date of the decree and the period thereafter is directly covered by Section 29 of the Arbitration Act. In the circumstances, grant of interest up to the date of the decree is also not open to attack. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly liable to be dismissed. 5. Coming to the cross-objection, no reason appears to have been given to deny the benefit of Section 29 of the Act so far as the claimant is concerned. The claIm is a heavy one and as found by the Arbitrator, the dues of the claimant have been withheld without any justification. The claimant was entitled to interest subsequent to the decree until recovery of the amount. Provision for the same is not only available to compensate the claimant for his loss but it also works as a pressure for satisfying the decree at the earliest convenience. In the circumstances, I allow the cross-objection and direct that the claimant would be entitled to future interest at the rate of nine percent from the date of the decree till the realisation. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Final Result : Dismissed