R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is appeal against the judgment and order of the Trial Court quashing and setting aside the award of the Arbitrator and refusing to pass a decree in terms of the award. The main disputed items are the claim for demurrage and interest. The claim before the Arbitrator was for Rs. 8,05,893. 38 out of which Rs. 3,16,703. 02 was the claim towards interest and an amount of Rs. 2,68,832. 59 was the claim on account of deduction and recovery of dmurage charges from the appellant. The Arbitrator passed an award for Rs. 4,55,605/- as against the total claim of Rs. 8,05,893. 38. ( 2 ) THE appellant is a handling contractor at Viramgam Railway Station and the respondent is the Railway Administration. The appellants tender was accepted for handling contract on 7. 8. 1968. The formal agreement Ex. c was entered into on 27. 7. 1968. It was a contract for three years. ( 3 ) ON 5. 9. 1972, the appellant-contractor raised a dispute and sought the arbitration by ex. D and made an application Ex. E under Secs. 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act which was registered as Suit No. 2451 of 1974. The application was made on the basis of the arbitration clause No. 33 in the arbitration agreement. The Railway Administration, by their written statement Ex. 15 resisted the claim for filing of the agreement and referring the dispute to arbitration and it was contended that there was no arbitrable dispute and nothing was required to be referred. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 27. 9. 1976, directed the arbitration agreement to be filed and referred the claims made by the appellant to the Arbitrator. The General Manager, by his order dated 26. 3. 1977 at annexure-H, nominated Chief Commercial Superintendent of the Western Railway to be the Arbitrator. It recites that the appellant had filed Civil Suit No. 2451 of 1974 in City civil Court, Ahmedabad for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve and decide the dispute and difference mentioned in the order in respect of the subject matter of the contract as per their claim filed in the Court/item No. 2 is demmurage charges as set out in para 5 (a) to 5 (z) of the plaint and that amount is mentioned to be Rs. 2,35,537. 95. Item no. 2,35,537. 95. Item no. 21 was regarding claim for interest at the rate of 12% on the amounts withheld by the way of damages and it is mentioned that the amount is not specified. Para 2 reads as follows:"in pursuance of the courts order dated 27. 9. 1976, in the said suit (copy enclosed for ready reference), the General Manager has been pleased to nominate you as sole Arbitrator to decide and resolve the above mentioned disputes and differences, which were referred in the said suit by the plaintifffs. " ( 4 ) THE appellant filed his statment of claim Ex. 5 and the Railway administration filed reply Ex. 6. In the reply also, the contention was raised that the claim for demurrage was barred under clause 10 (i) of the agreement. It is also contended that the dispute regarding interest was not referred. ( 5 ) ULTIMATELY, the Arbitrator gave his award on 31. 3. 1979 and after considering the matters which were referred to him and after considering all the claims made by the claimant, awarded a sum of Rs. 4,55,605/- in full and final settlement of the claim. The arbitrator awarded future interest at the rate of 9% perannum after eight weeks from the date of declaration of the award. The award is a lump sum award and it is not item-wise and it is not a reasoned award. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court allowed the application for setting aside the award mainly on the ground that the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction in the present case to grant interest on the amount awarded from the date of the award till the date of the decree. Essentially, the objection to the. item of interest was on the ground that the dispute regarding interest is not referred. This is factually incorrect. In the plaint of Civil Suit No. 2451 of 1974 which was an application under Secs. 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act (numbered as a suit), a specific claim has been made for interest at the rate of 12% on the amount withheld and it is para 25 of that application. It is true that no amount is specified, but the claim is that on the amount withheld, interest be awarded at the rate of 12% per annum. It is true that no amount is specified, but the claim is that on the amount withheld, interest be awarded at the rate of 12% per annum. When the General Manager nominated the Arbitrator and referred the dispute and differences, item No. 22 was the claim for interest at the rate of 12% on the amounts withheld by way of damages and against this item, it is mentioned as "amounts not specified". It is, thus, clear that not only the appellant had claimed interest in his application for referring the dispute to the arbitration, by the Trial Court had referred the dispute and the Railway Administration had also clearly understood that the dispute regarding interest is referred. ( 7 ) IN the case of Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt. of Orissa vs. G. C. Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732 , at page 748, in para 43, the Supreme Court had considered the question whether the Arbitator has power to award interest pendente lite. The Supreme Court was considering the situation like the present one where the agreement does not provide or prohibit the grant of interest and the agreement is silent. The first principle accepted by the Supreme Court reads as follows :"43 (I) : A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages. This basic consideration is as valid for the period the dispute is pending before the arbitrator as it is for the period prior to the arbitrator entering upon the reference. This is the principle of Sec. 34 CPC and there is no reason or principle to hold otherwise in the case of arbitrator. "this principle is directly applicable to the fact of the present case. The dispute regarding interest is referred and even if not referred, the Arbitrator has power to award interest pendente lite. Therefore, the respondents contention that the Arbitrator has gone beyond the reference in awarding interest has no merit and the Trial Courts finding upholding such contention is required to be reversed. ( 8 ) AS regards the claim of demurrage, the contention is that this issue was not arbitrable in view of clause 10 (i) of the agreement read with Clause 33. Clause 33 reads as follows:"33. ( 8 ) AS regards the claim of demurrage, the contention is that this issue was not arbitrable in view of clause 10 (i) of the agreement read with Clause 33. Clause 33 reads as follows:"33. If any dispute, difference or question shall arise between the Railway administration and Contractor as to the respective rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto or as to the construction or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement or as to its application (except the decision whereof is herein expressly provided for) then the same shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the General Manager of the Railway or if he be unable or unwilling to act then to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by him in this behalf and the decision of the General Manager or of the person so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties hereto. "clause 10 reads as follows :"10 (I) : Vehicles will be placed for loading, unloading, repacking and transhipment at the goods sheds, tranship sheds, coal dumps and repack sheds at stations, in one or more placements and the Contractor shall load, unload tranship, dump and repack the contents from vehicles so placed within the interval of time between one placement and the next. In the event of failure of the Contractor to complete loading, unloading, transhipment, dumping and repacking of contents from vehicles, within time interval specified above to the satisfaction of the Railway Administration (which shall be the sole judge and whose decision shall be final), the Contractor will render himself liable to action under Clause 30 hereof. (ii): The Contractor shall be responsible for any delay caused to vehicles due to insufficiency of labourers or by neglect, carelessness, incompetency or dishonesty of labourers, or other persons employed by him or for any other cause whatsoever; and in that event in addition to action under Sub- clause (i) above of this clause and any other provision of this Agreement, demurrage will also be charged at the rates as shown in Schedule e to the Agreement, from time being the day light hours as shown in Schedule f to the agreement for the purpose and the free time commencing from the time the vehicle is placed in position for loading, unloading, transhipping, dumping and repacking as the case may be. Where night work is stipulated in the agreement the free time will be as per Schedule f to the Agreement, irrespective of day or right time, and demurrage will be liviable for all the time taken in excess of the free time. " the question whether this claim was barred because of this provision or not, was required to be reaised at the time when the dispute was sought to be referred and got referred by the order of the Court. The Railway Administration was entitled to contend that out of the several claims and disputes raised by the appellant, this particular claim of demurrage was not arbitrable and could not have been referred. The Trial Court could have decided the same and any party aggrieved thereby could have taken further recourse according to law. The Railway Administration failed to specifically raise that issue and the Trial Court directed the dispute regarding demurrage to be referred to the arbitrator and that decision has not been challenged by the Railway Administration. It has become final and binding to the parties. Secondly, and in the alternative, it is to be noted that the respondent Railway Administration has raised the same issues before the arbitration. When there is any dispute about the interpretation of the agreement or whether any item is arbitrable or not may become the subject matter of difference and the Arbitrator may have to decide that question. In the present case, such contention was raised in the written statement filed by the Railway Administration and, therefore, the Arbitrator is deemed to have decided that difference and held against the Railway Administration. The contention that by virtue of Clause 10 (i), the dispute had become non arbitrable would depend upon the factual basis. The factual basis required is that there has to be a decision of the Railway Administration on the subject regarding recovery and deduction of demurrage from the appellant. The Railway Administarion does not necessarily mean any and every person in the Railway Administration and it has to be some Competent authority who has to take the conscious decision and such acuthority in absence of any other material can be taken to be the Chief Commercial Superintendent, Western Railway who has signed the agreement on behalf of the Railway Administration. No such decision has been shown or placed on record at any stage and, therefore, factual foundation under clause 10 (i) is lacking. Therefore, having regard to all these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has exceeded the jurisdiction in considering the claim of demurrage. As against the claim of Rs. 8,05,893. 38, the Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs. 4,55,605/ -. ( 9 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the reasons given by the Trial court for setting aside the award and for not passing the decree in terms of the award is required to be quashed and set aside. ( 10 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant has stated that the appellant restricts his claim in this appeal to a sum of Rs. 2 lacs with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date stated by the Arbitrator, namely on expiry of two months from 31st March, 1979 the date of the award i. e. from 31st May 1979, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the contentions arising in the appeal regarding demurrage. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of the Trial court are quashed and set aside and there shall be a decree in the sum of Rs. 2 lacs with running interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 31st May 1979 till realisation. This would be a decree in terms the award subject to the concession made by the appellant. .