S. K. SEN, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : In the instant application the petitioner, Union of India has challenged an Award passed by the Joint Arbitrators dated 13th October, 1993 inter alia on the ground that Arbitrator has acted in excess of the power conferred upon him. The Arbitrators made an Award for Rs. 5,54,735 in favour of the complainant as against the claim of Rs. 18, 97,938. It is the contention of Mr. S. K. Mina, learned Advocate for Union of India that the Arbitrator have exceeded their jurisdiction and have passed an Award contrary to the Agreement. ( 2 ) IN this connection, Mr. Mitra has referred to General Conditions of Contract of the Eastern Railway, which forms a part of the Agreement between the parties. He has further submitted that Claim No. 1 (a), Item 3 of Agreement, namely Removal of Boulders amounts to extra/additional work done by the contractor without obtaining permission of Railway Engineer as required in Clause 39 and 42 of the General Conditions of Contract. ( 3 ) HE has further contended that no permission of Railway Engineer was obtained for doing such extra work nor was the rate fixed as required under Rule 39 and 42 of the General Conditions of Contract. Although Mr. Mitra has not disputed that such extra work was done under the supervision of Railway Engineer, according to him, the same however does not confer jurisdiction on Arbitrators to travel beyond the Contract. ( 4 ) HE has further submitted that it is a jurisdictional error and Court can interfere with the Award. Court can under such circumstances look into the contract to consider if the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction or gone beyond the limit of the Contract. ( 5 ) IN my view, the contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Union of India, cannot be accepted for the reason that the Railway Engineer himself supervised the work. Moreover, it is well settled that the Court cannot sit in appeal over an Award. ( 6 ) IT has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of UP. Hotels etc. Moreover, it is well settled that the Court cannot sit in appeal over an Award. ( 6 ) IT has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of UP. Hotels etc. v. U.P. State Electricity Board reported in AIR 1989 SC 268 that "even assuming that there was an error of construction of the agreement or even that there was an error of law in arriving at a conclusion, such an error is not an error which is amenable to correction even in a reasoned award under the law. In order to set aside an award, there must be a wrong proposition of law laid down in the award as the basis of the award. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, there was Bulk Supply Agreement between the consumer and the Electricity Board for supply of energy. On interpretation of the agreement the Umpire held that the claim of the consumer was covered by a decision of the Supreme Court. The agreement was binding on the Board and its terms could not be varied from the uniform rate under sub-sections 1 and 2 of Section 49 of the Electricity (Supply) Act. " ( 8 ) IT has been also held that "the view taken by the Umpire on Section 49 was a possible view in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court. In the premises a question of law arose certainly during the course of the proceedings. Such a question has been decided by the Umpire on a view which was a possible one to take. Even if there was no specific reference of a question of law referred to the Umpire, there was a question of law involved. Even on the assumption that such a view was not right, the award was not amenable to interference or correction by the Courts of law as there was proposition of law which could be said to be the basis of the award of the Umpire, and which was erroneous. " ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the Engineer himself supervised the extra work, and the railway authorities accepted the said work. Moreover, the terms and conditions did not exclude the scope of extra work. The terms and conditions only provide that permission of the Engineer should be obtained. " ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the Engineer himself supervised the extra work, and the railway authorities accepted the said work. Moreover, the terms and conditions did not exclude the scope of extra work. The terms and conditions only provide that permission of the Engineer should be obtained. Since the Engineer himself was supervising the work, it cannot be said that the permission was not there. Be that as it may, it has already been noted that even assuming there is an error in the construction of the Agreement the same cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record or a case where the error has exceeded in Jurisdiction and as such there is no scope for interference on that ground. So far as the other contention the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Union of India, has also submitted that no rate or scale of pay was fixed by payment of extra work. ( 10 ) THE contention of the respondent, on the other hand, is that rate will be same in the view of the identical nature of the work carried on as was done under original contract. It has also been pointed out that the rates have been fixed for various works and the extra work falls under the same type. In that view of the matter, there is no scope for dispute with regard to the contract and it cannot be said that the Arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of reference. On the contrary, it appears that the scope of the reference is covered by the order dated 18th March, 1991 whereby Mr. Prabir Kumar Majumdar, J, directed the Arbitrator to go into all questions or disputes between the parties as provided in the said order. The scope of the Arbitration and reference has really become wide by virtue of the said order. The contention of the learned Advocate to the effect that the Arbitrator has exceeded his Jurisdiction therefore fails. The other contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Union of India, that the Arbitrator also erred in law in not allowing the counter-claim of Union of India and as such same suffers from infirmity and are required to be corrected. The contention of the learned Advocate to the effect that the Arbitrator has exceeded his Jurisdiction therefore fails. The other contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Union of India, that the Arbitrator also erred in law in not allowing the counter-claim of Union of India and as such same suffers from infirmity and are required to be corrected. ( 11 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances, I do not find any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the record in such rejection of the counter-claim and as such I am not inclined to interfere with the Award first in the instant case and accordingly the application fails and is dismissed with costs. ( 12 ) ALL parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of the judgment on the usual undertaking. Application dismissed.