Judgment :- Pareed Pillai, ag. C.J 1. Appellant put forward claims in respect of earth work, extra cutting and extra filling and contended that these claims were not covered by the earlier award or decree. Respondents took up the stand that the claims presently put forward by the appellant were included in the claim statement submitted by him in the prior proceedings before the Arbitrator and as an arbitration award was passed in full and final settlement of all dues in the work he cannot raise any more dispute. 2. The learned Sub Judge held that the disputes (23 in number) were detailed as (a) to (w) in the claim statement and disputes (e) and (f) cover the present claims. Accordingly, petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the order dated 6-2-1985 of the Arbitrator that the claim is unsustainable was confirmed. 3. The learned Sub Judge held that as the claims regarding earth excavation along with other disputes were raised by the appellant in the prior arbitration proceedings and as the Arbitrator passed an award directing the respondents to pay the award amount as that decree was satisfied by the respondent by payment, the present claim is without any justification. Appellant could have raised Alappuzha his contentions in the first arbitration proceedings. Inasmuch as the final bill was prepared and presented by the respondent at the time of final hearing before the award was claims, if any, arising out of the final bill at the time of final hearing and as he did not raise any such claims he cannot legally raise the present claim belatedly. Appellant's contention that his present claims were not in issue in the earlier claim and so the Arbitrator was not justified in rejecting his claim out right is not tenable. 4. Principles of respondent judicata and constructive respondent judicata are applicable to arbitration proceedings as well. As the appellant could have raised all his contentions before the Arbitrator at the first instance and as he did not raise it at the appropriate time, he cannot be heard to say that the present claim was not an issue in the earlier arbitration proceedings and therefore he is not precluded from raising it afresh. In K.V. George v. Secretary to Govt. In K.V. George v. Secretary to Govt. Water and Power Department, Trivandrum and another ( A.I.R 1990 SC 53) the Supreme Court held that the principles of res- judicata or for that matter the principles of constructive res judicata apply to arbitration proceedings and as such the award made in the second arbitration proceedings cannot be sustained. Even if contention of the appellant that the present claim was not a matter in issue in the earlier arbitration proceedings is assumed to be correct, it would not be of any held to him as the claim is barred by constructive res judicata. We see no merit in the M.F.A. and hence the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. S.M. Dismissed.