Charanjit Talwar ( 1 ) ON an application filed by M/s Vikram Construction Company, notices were issued to the Union of India as well as to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator Mr. Kanwarjit Singh, who is working at present as Deputy Chief Engineer in the Railways filed a copy of the Award. On page 3 of the Award, which was published on 14th April, 1981, the learned Arbitrator has given a note dated 21st April, 1986, That note reads as under" Attested to be true copy of the original Award on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper. " ( 2 ) IT is an admitted case of the parties that the file of the arbitration proceedings has been misplaced. Infact the arbitrator in his affidavit of 21st April, 1986 has said so, in so may words. That file has not yet been traced out. The result is that neither the award in original nor the file of the arbitration proceedings is available. ( 3 ) MR. D. K. Kapur, learned counsel for the petitioner M/s Vikram Construction Company submits that in the circumstances of the case, the award is liable to be set aside. I may note that the petitioner has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act to the Award, Those objections were registered as IA 292/86. Inter alia, the contention is that the award, if it is assumed that it was published on the date on which it is stated to be, was made after the expiry of the period of four months, after the arbitrator had entered into reference. The main objection, however, is that there are no arbitration proceedings and as such in that absence of the original award and the proceedings, the award is not liable to be made a rule of the court. ( 4 ) MR. Sanat Kumar, learned counsel for the Union of India (respondent No. 1 herein) submits that in the interest of justice, the arbitration proceedings file be directed to be re-constructed. He says that the parties can be asked by this court to file copies of the statements of claims/counter-claims, the documents on which parties relied in support of their respective contentions, and copies of the evidence led before the arbitrator. He says that the parties can be asked by this court to file copies of the statements of claims/counter-claims, the documents on which parties relied in support of their respective contentions, and copies of the evidence led before the arbitrator. His plea is that this procedure can be adopted in these pending proceedings and thereafter on the re-construction of the file, it could be gone into, if necessity arises and the law permits and then objections relating to the arbitration proceedings and/or to the award can be tested. Learned counsel for the parties have not been able to show me any case law on the peculiar point which has arisen for decision in this case. ( 5 ) IN my view the file of arbitration proceedings be re-constructed but not in this court. It is for the learned arbitrator to have it re-constructed by passing appropriate orders and if necessary, after giving hearing to the parties. If for some reason the learned arbitrator is unable to carry out this task, I give him liberty to refer the matter to the appointing authority so that the matter can be referred to another arbitrator. ( 6 ) THE result is that I remit the award to the learned arbitrator for proceeding in the case in accordance with law. I may note that according to Mr. Kapur, the case cannot be remitted under the provisions of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. I am afraid I do not agree. I may further note that Mr. Kapur has not been able to suggest as to what other course can be adopted in the interest of justice. Under the peculiar circumstances of the case, this is the only course open to this court. I grant 4 months time to the arbitrator to submit his decision.