B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THIS is an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, inter alia, praying that the disputes between the parties should be referred to arbitration. ( 2 ) THERE was an agreement between the parties dated 21st March, 1974 whereby the petitioner was appointed as an agent under the scheme of Manila Pradhan Khshetrya Bachat Yojna. It is alleged that by an order dated 24th December, 1983, the respondent terminated the agency of the petitioner with immediate effect. It is alleged that the termination of the agreement was wrongful and the loss of the income is to the tune of lakhs of rupees every year. ( 3 ) THE agreement contained an arbitration clause which, inter alia, provided that "all disputes arising under or concerning the terms of this Agreement or in any manner relating to this Agreement shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator of the Post Master General of the post circle concerned, which decision shall be final and binding on the parties and such reference shall be governed by the Arbitration Act No. 10 of 1940 or such statutory modification thereto as may for the time being in force. " The prayer is that the dispute of damages be referred to arbitrator. ( 4 ) IN the reply which has been filed by the respondent there is no suit dispute that the aforesaid arbitration agreement did subsist between the parties, The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, however, is that the claim for damages is not covered by the arbitration clause, ( 5 ) IN my opinion the dispute sought to be raised by the petitioner is clearly covered by the arbitration clause. The artitration clause is very widely worded. It not only deals with the disputes arising under the agreement but it also refers to disputes which are "in any manner relating to this agreement". The question as to whether the agreement has been validly terminated or not is certainly a question which would require consideration and is a question which relates to the agreement. As a consequence thereof, there would be a further question of damages which would be payable if it is held that there was a wrongful termination of the tenancy. In my opinion, therefore, the disputes sought to be raised are covered by the arbitration agreement. As a consequence thereof, there would be a further question of damages which would be payable if it is held that there was a wrongful termination of the tenancy. In my opinion, therefore, the disputes sought to be raised are covered by the arbitration agreement. It was then submitted that the amount involved in this case is less than rupees one lakh and, therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to hear this case. By order dated 25th July, 1985, the petition was allowed to be amended and in paragraph 13 the amount of damages was allowed to be incorporated as Rs. 1,50,003. 45 p. In view of the fact that the claim for damages, after the amendment of the petition has been allowed, is more than rupees one lakh, there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try this petition. ( 6 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to file the arbitration agreement in court and the disputes are referred to the Post Master General in terms of clause 5 of the agreement. The Post Master General should enter upon the reference within three months from today and give his award within four months thereafter. ( 7 ) THE petitioner shall be entitled to costs of this petition.