P. K. Bahri ( 1 ) THIS petition is filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act seeking direction for filing of the arbitration agreement in court and for appointment of the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause appearing in the contract and for reference of the disputes to the said arbitrator. ( 2 ) IT is admitted case of the parties that a contract was awarded to the petitioner by the respondent for loading/unloading of the goods as transport contractors at Food Corporation godowns and Rail-head at Nokha at 395 per cent above the schedule of rates for services stated in Appendix VII on the terms and conditions incorporated in the tender. The contract was to be completed within the period October 28, 1976 to October 27, 1978. Certain disputes between parties were during the pendency of the said contract and the petitioner moved a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No. 797-A/78 for appointment of the arbitrator in accordance with the arbitration clause and for reference of the disputes mentioned in the said petition to the said arbitrator. Petition was filed on July 29, 1978, vide order dated October 24, 1978, the court allowed that petition and directed the Managing Director of the respondent to appoint the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause and referred all the disputes between the parties concerning the contract to the arbitration within as weeks. ( 3 ) IN pursuance of the order of the court, the competent authority had appointed the arbitrator and has, per memorandum dated November 30, 1978, appointed the arbitrator and required the arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and differences that have arisen between the parties pertaining to the said contract and made it clear that the parties shall be free to prefer any claims/counter claims against each other in respect of the said contract before the arbitrator during the course of the proceeding. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the arbitrator in which he, inter alia, put up the claim in para 21 that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the arbitrator in which he, inter alia, put up the claim in para 21 that the petitioner is entitled to the payment of Rs. 1,03,311 being the value of the work done by the claimant under the contract and accepted by the respondent-Corporation but the bills for the same have not been verified and the claimant has become entitled to the said amount on the basis of the work slips and the bills already submitted. ( 4 ) THIS claim is denied by the respondent in the reply to the claim petition-cum-counter claim taking the plea that it was for the claimant to have submitted the bills duly completed in all. respects to the respondent for payment and no such bills were received. The award was given by the arbitrator and regarding this particular claim the arbitrator had held that the claimant had not led any evidence to prove this claim and thus, he negatived this claim. The said award is stated to have been made a rule of the court as no objections bad been filed to the award. ( 5 ) THE claim, which has already been rejected by the arbitrator, is now sought to be referred to the arbitrator by the petitioner by filing the present petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act. ( 6 ) THE respondent has contested the petition pleading that as the claim already stood decided by the arbitrator in the previous award, hence, claim is now not referable again for arbitration. The following issues were framed : 1. Whether the claim in suit has already been referred and adjudicated upon by the arbitrator Shri M. S. Chadha while giving his award dated May 8, 1981 ? 2. Relief, ( 7 ) ISSUE No. 1. The facts, as have been enumerated above, are not in dispute. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that in the claim petition which is subject-matter of Suit No. 797-A/78, the petitioner has not raised this particular dispute and thus, the order which was made by the court should be deemed to have not referred the dispute now arising in the present petition forarbitration and thus, any award given by the arbitrator on such a dispute which was not referred to him under the orders of the court is beyond the scope of the reference, and is nullity. There is no, merit in this contention. It is not disputed that the claim in question had arisen at the time the order was made by the court for making the reference of the disputes to the arbitrator. The court in its order bad clearly recorded as follows: "i allow the petition and order that the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India shall appoint an arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause and refer all the disputes between the parties concerning the contract to arbitration within six weeks. " ( 8 ) THE above order is very clear that all disputes arising between the parties concerning the contract in question stood referred for arbitration. Mere fact that at the time the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act was filed the present dispute in question had not arised is no ground to hold that the order contemplated only reference of disputes raised in the petition for reference for arbitration. The contract is almost concluded on the day the order was made and the claim in question had also arisen as far as the petitioner is concerned. There is no legal bar in the court directing reference of all the claim arising from the particular contract which stands concluded for reference for arbitration in accordance with the arbitration clause. In the present case the memorandum of reference prepared by the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India while nominating the arbitrator also made it clear that parties could put up all the claims and counter claims before the said arbitrator arising from the said contract. So, it cannot be said that the arbitrator before whom the petitioner had put up the claim in question as well had no jurisdiction to entertain the said claim. Hence, I hold that once this claim has been referred and adjudicated upon by the arbitrator, the said claim cannot be now referred to any other arbitrator for decision. Issue is decided against the petitioner. ( 9 ) IN view of the decision in issue No. 1, this petition is liable, to be dismissed. ( 10 ) I dismiss the petition with costs.