N. C. Kochar ( 1 ) THE petitioner had entered into a contract with respondent No. 1, Food Corporation of India through their Senior Regional Manager (respondent No. 3) in respect of handling and transport work for Taraodi godowns and the contract was concluded by respondents vide their letter No. F10 (17)/h. T. C. /ten. Eng/sept. 80 dated 31 October, 1980. The contract was later on amended so as to include handling transport work for "railhead Karnal", amendment was carried out on 8th April, 1981. The contract between the parties is governed by an arbitration clause, according to which, all disputes and differences arising out in any way touching or concerning the agreement whatsoever (except as to any matter the decision of which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India. ( 2 ) IN this petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the petitioner has contended that during discussion it was decided that Railhead Karnal would also be covered by the agreement and further that due to the rise in the prices of diesel the petitioner would be paid at the rate of Rs. 2. 25 per quintal instead of the rate of Rs. 1. 90 per quintal, as provided in the original agreement but the clause regarding enhanced payment was not incorporated in the agreement. The petitioner has, however, claimed that he is entitled to be paid at the rate of Rs. 2. 25 per quintal and as such disputes have arisen between the parties, which the respondents have failed to refer to the arbitrator inspite of service of notice. ( 3 ) THE respondents have contested the petition on the ground mainly that no referable disputes have arisen between the parties. ( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed : - 1. Whether any referable dispute has arisen between the parties as alleged by the petitioner ? 2. Relief. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri Ajay Gaind for the petitioner, Shri Vijender Jain for the respondent and also perused the record of the case. My findings on the issues are as under :- ( 6 ) ISSUE NO. Whether any referable dispute has arisen between the parties as alleged by the petitioner ? 2. Relief. ( 5 ) I have heard Shri Ajay Gaind for the petitioner, Shri Vijender Jain for the respondent and also perused the record of the case. My findings on the issues are as under :- ( 6 ) ISSUE NO. 1 Shri Jain has contended that in view of the fact that the agreement between the parties did not provide that if the truck union rates were increased because of the rise in the prices of diesel, there is no question of bills being paid at the rate of Rs. 2. 29 per quintal and that the bills having been paid at the agreed rate of Rs. 1. 90 per quintal, there was no dispute which can be referred to the arbitrator. It is, however, not disputed that the work has been done by the petitioner in accordance with the terms of the contract and further that the contract between the parties is governed by arbitration clause, Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim his remuneration at the higher rate in the absence of any provision in the contract, he is to be decided by the arbitrator and not by the Court. This dispute is thus to be decided by the arbitrator and is a referable dispute. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. ( 7 ) ISSUE NO. 2 In view of my finding on issue No. 1, direct the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India (Respondent No. 2) to appoint an arbitrator in terms of clause 19 of the agreement between the parties, within a period of two months from today. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Suit No. 1735-A of 1983 stands decided accordingly.