Judgment :- Pareed Pillay, J. Appellant challenges the judgment of the learned single judge in O.P. 8642 of 1990 setting aside the award of the Arbitrator in part. Learned Judge held that Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to award interest pendente lite. 2. Appellant was the contractor for the work "P.I.P.R.B. Circle, formation of Kaviyoor Branch Canal, 3rd reach from Chh:2,300 M - 3576M - including C.D. works". The agreement was executed between him and respondents on 24-11-1976. Disputes arose during the progress of the work and those disputes were referred to Chief Engineer (Arbitration), Thiruvananthapuram. Chief Engineer (Arbitration) on 22-5-1978 passed a v nil" award. Appellant filed O.P.(Arb.) 59 of 1978 under S.30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act') to set aside the award. The Sub Judge, Alappuzha set aside the award on 16-7-1980. Appellant filed O.P.(Arb.) 85 of 1984 before the Sub Court, Alappuzha under S.20 of the Act for referring the disputes to a fresh Arbitrator appointed by Court. This petition was transferred to the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta where it was renumbered as O.P.( Arb) 54 of 1985. The Court on 25-9-1987 appointed Si. Sankara Ganakan, retired District Judge as sole Arbitrator. That order was challenged by the respondents before this Court in M.F.A.94 of 1988. By judgment dated 3-3-1989 this Court appointed Sri. K. Ramakrishnan Nair, retired Chief Engineer (PWD) as the sole Arbitrator. The Arbitrator entered on reference on 22-3-1989. He passed award on 15-7-1989 granting RS. 2,28,132/- for extra work and Rs. 2,22,428/- towards interest. Other claims of the appellant and the counter claims of the respondents were rejected. 3. The arbitrator then filed the Award before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta under S.14 of the Act. The prayer of the respondents to set aside the award was rejected by that Court. Decree in terms of the award was passed on 30-11-1989. The judgment and decree were challenged before this Court in M.F. A. 355 of 1990 on the ground that the Court below had no jurisdiction to receive the award and entertain it under S.17 of the Act. It was contended that the award ought to have been filed in the High Court as the Arbitrator was appointed by this Court. The judgment and decree were challenged before this Court in M.F. A. 355 of 1990 on the ground that the Court below had no jurisdiction to receive the award and entertain it under S.17 of the Act. It was contended that the award ought to have been filed in the High Court as the Arbitrator was appointed by this Court. M.F.A. 355 of 1990 was allowed and the judgment and decree of the Sub Court were set aside and that Court was directed to return the award and necessary records to the Arbitrator for filing the same before this Court. Arbitrator filed the award and connected records before this Court and this Court issued notice in O.P. (Arb.) 7282 of 1990. Respondents filed application to set .aside the award on disputes (1) and (3) decided by the Arbitrator. 4. The controversial points were: - (i) Once the award passed by the Arbitrator was set aside, the Court had no jurisdiction la-refer the dispute to arbitration a second time; (ii) The award passed by Sri. K. Ramakrishnan Nair, Arbitrator appointed by this Court in M.F.A. 94/88 is unsustainable and liable to be set aside; (iii) Award on dispute No. (3) granting interest at 9% per annum on the amount awarded on Claim No. (1) is beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The learned Single Judge rejected the first two contentions but he held that the Arbitrator was clearly in error in awarding the interest from the date of the final bill viz. 15-5-1978 till the date he entered on the reference viz. 22-3-1989. Accordingly this part of the award was quashed. The decision is reported in Jacob v. State of Kerala (1991 (L) K.L.T 467). 5. It is seen that the Arbitrator awarded interest on the money found due to the appellant at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the passing of final bill for the work viz. 15-5-1978 till the date on which he entered on reference viz. 22-3-1989. Arbitration proceedings commenced in 1978 when it was referred to the Chief Engineer (Arbitration). That proceedings continued till Sri. K. Ramakrishnan Nair passed his award on 15-7-1989. As the proceedings before Sri. 15-5-1978 till the date on which he entered on reference viz. 22-3-1989. Arbitration proceedings commenced in 1978 when it was referred to the Chief Engineer (Arbitration). That proceedings continued till Sri. K. Ramakrishnan Nair passed his award on 15-7-1989. As the proceedings before Sri. K. Ramakrishnan Nair is to be considered as a continuing arbitration proceedings initiated in 1978, the rights of the Arbitrator to pass the award must be decided with reference to the date of initiation of the proceedings. Stand of the respondents is that as the proceedings were initiated in 1978 ie. at a time before the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, the Arbitrator lacked power to award interest on the principal sum adjudged as per the award. It is not disputed that the dispute was referred to the Chief Engineer (Arbitration) in 1978. Though his award was set aside by the Court, the arbitration agreement was not superseded. 6. Whether the Arbitrator is justified in granting interest pendente lite is the only point urged before us. The learned Single Judge held that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to grant interest pendente lite. Relying on Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of India, v. G. C. Roy (A.I.R 1992 SC 732) counsel for the appellant contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge can no longer be sustained. The earlier view held by the Supreme Court was that claimants are not entitled to claim interest either before the commencement of the arbitration proceedings or during its pendency for the reason that the Interest Act, 1939. did not apply to their cases. In Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Galimala v. Abnaduta Jena ( A.I.R 1988 SC 1520) the Supreme Court held that with regard to pendente lite interest, that is, interest from the date of reference to the date of award, the claimants would not be entitled to the same for the simple reason that the arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of S.34 of the C.P.C. nor were the references to arbitration made in the course of suits. Supreme Court further held that in the cases which arose before the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, the claimants are not entitled to claim interest either before the commencement of the proceedings or during the pendency of the arbitration. 7. Supreme Court further held that in the cases which arose before the commencement of the Interest Act, 1978, the claimants are not entitled to claim interest either before the commencement of the proceedings or during the pendency of the arbitration. 7. The said decision was overruled in A.I.R 1992 SC 732 and the Supreme Court held that it is within the discretion of the arbitrator taking into consideration all aspects of the matter and keeping the ends of justice in view to award interest pendente lite. It is made clear that it does not mean that in every case the arbitrator should necessarily award interest pendente lite. Te Supreme Court held that where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute (along with the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. Supreme Court observed that in such a case it must be presumed that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties and hence when the parties refer all their disputes or refer the dispute as to interest as such to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest. In view of the settled legal position, the judgment of the learned single judge cannot be sustained. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside. We hold that the appellant is entitled to the interest awarded by the Arbitrator. M.F.A. stands allowed with no order as to costs.