JUDGMENT R. L. Khorana, J.—The work of construction of houses at New Shimia was awarded to the plaintiffs, Messrs, S. R. S. Engineers and Builders, Sanjauli, Shimla by Shimla Development Authority. 2. On a dispute having arisen between the parties regarding the payment for the work done by the plaintiffs, the matter was referred to the arbitration of Shri R, K, Kaura, the then Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) Solan, 3. The arbitrator entered upon the reference and made his award on 27-7-1992. The said award was filed to this Court for being made the rule of the court Objections to the award were preferred by the defendant Authority which came to be registered as Civil Suit No 126 of 1992. Vide order dated 21-1-1993, the objections were allowed and the award was remitted to the arbitrator for recording its reasons, 4. The arbitrator, on the award dated 27-7-1992 having been remitted to him under section 16, Arbitration Act, by this Court, made a fresh award on 5-7-1993 and filed the same in this Court for being made the rule of this Court This award was again remitted to the arbitrator under section 16, Arbitration Act, vide order dated 24-3-1994 of this Court passed in Civil Suit No. 104 of 199\ 5 On the receipt of the record from the Court, the arbitrator directed the parties to produce farther evidence, if any, in support of their respective claims. Though, further evidence was led by the plaintiffs, no such evidence was led by the defendants and they confined themselves to the evidence already produced by them 6. The arbitrator, after hearing the parties and upon examination and assessment of the material/evidence placed before him, made the award dated 23-7-1 v94 whereby a sum of Rs 5J0.486 under different heads was awarded in favour of the plaintiffs This award has been filed in this Court for being made the rule of the Court, 7. While no objections to the award have been preferred by the plaintiffs, the defendants have objected to the award being made the rule of the Court by filing objections under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act It has been averred that the arbitrator in making the award has gone beyond the order of remittance passed by this Court and as such has misconducted himself. It has also been averred that the arbitrator in giving adjudication of Clause IOC of the agreement, a matter which was within the sole competency of the Chief Engineer-cum Chief Executive Officer, has misconducted himself and also that interest has been wrongly awarded by the arbitrator. Evidence was not properly appreciated and that amounts have been wrongly awarded for some hidden items which could not be verified at the spot. 8. The plaintiffs while resisting the objections have denied the averments of the defendants. It was averred that there was no misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. The award has been validly and properly made. It was prayed that the award dated 23 % 1994 filed by the arbitrator be made the rule of the court. The plaintiffs also prayed for future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount awarded. 9. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 7-3-1995 :— 1. Whether the Arbitrator has mis-conducted himself and the proceedings, as alleged ? O. P. Objector. 2. Relief. 10. It may not be out of place to mention here that the original defendants Shimla Development Authority, during the pendency of the present case, was superseded and substituted by Himachal Pradesh Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran On an application made by the plaintiffs under Order 1, Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, being O M. P. No. 32 of 1996, the said Pradhikaran was substituted as party defendant in place of Shimla Development Authority vide order dated 4-3-1996 of this Court. 11. I have heard Shri S R. Sharma, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs and Shri G. C. Gupta, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the defendants and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under :— Issue No. 1 : 12. The defendants have averred that the arbitrator in making the award has travelled beyond the order of remittance passed by this Court under section 16, Arbitration Act, and as such has misconducted himself and the proceedings. 13. Nothing has been brought on the record by the defendants to show that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the scope of the order of this Court and/or the scope of the reference. No evidence has been led. 13. Nothing has been brought on the record by the defendants to show that the arbitrator had travelled beyond the scope of the order of this Court and/or the scope of the reference. No evidence has been led. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants during the course of evidence in this Court, it has been deposed that the evidence led before the arbitrator may be gone into. 14. It is well settled that this Court does not sit in appeal over the conclusions of the arbitrator by re-examining or re-assessing the evidence produced by the parties. Therefore, in the absence of anything to the contrary, it can be safely held that the arbitrator did not travel beyond the scope of the order passed by this Court remitting the award under section 16 of the Arbitration Act. 15. Clause 10-C of the agreement between the parties in so far as id is material for the purpose of present case reads :— "If during the progress of the works, the price of any materials incorporated in the works, (not being a material supplied from the Engineer-in-Charges stores in accordance with Clause 10 hereof) and/or wages of labour increases as a direct result of the coming into force of any fresh law, or statutory rule or order (but not due to any changes in sales tax) and such increase exceeds ten per cent of the price and/or wages prevailing at the time of acceptance of the tender for the work, and the contractor thereupon necessarily and properly pays in respect of that materials (incorporated in the works) such increased and/or in respect of labour engaged on the execution of the work such increased wages, then the amount of the contract shall accordingly be varied : provided always that any increase so payable is not, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer (whose decision shall be final and binding) attributable to delay in the execution of the contract within the control of the contractor. Only increase exceeding ten per cent on the price of material and/or wages is to be reimbursed and upto 10% increase on the price of material and/or wages of labour is to be borne by the contractor. No adjustment of contractors profit and overhead is allowed under Clause 10 (C)." 16. A sum of Rs. Only increase exceeding ten per cent on the price of material and/or wages is to be reimbursed and upto 10% increase on the price of material and/or wages of labour is to be borne by the contractor. No adjustment of contractors profit and overhead is allowed under Clause 10 (C)." 16. A sum of Rs. 62,268 was claimed by the plaintiffs on account of increase in price under the above quoted clause. As against the said claim, according to the defendants the amount worked out at Rs. 40,660. The arbitrator has awarded the amount as worked out by the defendants to the plaintiffs. 1?. According to the defendants, the arbitrator could not have adjudicated upon the claim under Clause 10-C of the agreement, since it was only the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Chief Engineer of the defendants Pradhikaran, being the final authority, who could adjudicate upon such questions. 18. There is no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the defendants. What has to be determined by the Chief Executive Officer under this clause is that the increases if any, in the cost of materials and/or wages payable to the labour "is not attributable to the delay in the execution of contract within the control of the contractor". There is nothing on the record to show that any such opinion was recorded by the Chief Executive Officer and that such opinion was ignored by the Arbitrator The clause specifically provides that the contractor shall be entitled to increase in the cost of material and/or wages payable to the labour which is in excess of 10% of such increase Therefore, if the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,660 (on the basis of calculations by the defendants themselves) under Clause JO-C of the agreement it cannot be said that the arbitrator has exceeded his authority and thereby has misconducted himself and the proceedings. 19. The next contention raised on behalf of the defendants is that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceeding in allowing interest of Rs. 1,48,379 at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding amount on account of delayed payment of the amount. 20. 19. The next contention raised on behalf of the defendants is that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceeding in allowing interest of Rs. 1,48,379 at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding amount on account of delayed payment of the amount. 20. The Honble Supreme Court in Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa and others v. G. C. Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732, while dealing with the question whether arbitrator has the power to award interest, and if so on what principle, has held :— "The question still remains whether arbitrator has the power to award interest pendente lite, and if so on what principle. We must reiterate that we are dealing with the situation where the agreement docs not provide for grant of such interest nor does it prohibit such grant In other words, we are dealing with a case where the agreement is silent as to award of interest. On a conspectus of aforementioned decisions, the following principles emerge: (i) A person deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be 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 section 34, C P> C., and there is no reason or principle to hold otherwise in the case of arbitrator, (ii) an arbitrator is an alternative form for resolution of disputes arising between the parties. If so, he must have the power to decide all the disputes or differences arising between the parties, if the arbitrator has no power to award interest pendente litet the party claiming it would have to approach the Court for that purpose, even though he may have obtained satisfaction in respect of other claims from the arbitrator, This would lead to multiplicity of proceedings (iii) An arbitrator is the creature of an agreement. It is open to the parties to confer upon him such powers and prescribe such procedure for him to follow, as they think fit, so long as they are not opposed to law. (The proviso to section 41 and section 3 of Arbitration Act illustrate this point). It is open to the parties to confer upon him such powers and prescribe such procedure for him to follow, as they think fit, so long as they are not opposed to law. (The proviso to section 41 and section 3 of Arbitration Act illustrate this point). All the same, the agreement must be in conformity with law The arbitrator must also act and make his award in accordance with the general law of the land and the agreement.. (iv) Over the years, the English and Indian Courts have acted on the assumption that where the agreement does not prohibit and a party to the reference makes a claim for interest, the arbitrator must have the power to award interest pendente lite. Thawardas, AIR 1955 SC 46, has not been followed in the later decisions of this Court. It has been explained and distinguished on the basis that in that case there was no claim for interest but only a claim for unliquidated damages It has been said repeatedly that observations in the said judgment were not intended to lay down any such absolute or universal rule as they appear to, on first impression. Until Jenas case, AIR 1988 SC 1520, almost all the courts in the country had upheld the power of the arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. Continuity and certainty is a highly desirable feature of law. (v) Interest pendente lite is not a matter of substantive law, like interest for the period anterior to reference (pre«reference period). For doing complete justice between the parties, such power has always been inferred. it was further held in the following terms : "Where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute (alongwith the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. it was further held in the following terms : "Where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute (alongwith the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. This is for the reason that in such a case it must be presumed that interest was an implied term of the agreement between the parties and therefore 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 This does not mean that in every case the arbitrator should necessarily award interest pendente lite, It is a matter within his discretion to be exercised in the light of all the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping the ends of justice in view.” 21. In the present case, the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest. The dispute between the parties was referred to the arbitrator by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Chief Engineer vide office order dated 20-10-1990 in the following terms. “Whereas disputes have arisen between the above named parties in respect of the above noted work and whereas disputes arising between the parties are required under Clause 25 of the agreement to be referred to the sole Arbitration of the person to be appointed by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Chief Engineer, Shimla Development Authority, Khalini, Shimla 2, therefore, in pursuance of the powers given to me under the said clause of agreement, I, T. L. Sharma, Chief Executive Officer cum-Chief Engineer, Shimla Development Authority, Khalini, Shimla 2 appoint Shri R. K Kaura, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) HP : PWD, Solan as an Arbitrator to decide and make his award regarding the claims/disputes given by the Contractor and also regarding the counter claims of the Shimla Development Authority against the contractor followed subsequently, if any, subject always however to the admissibility under Clause 23 of the aforesaid agreement. He is requested to give reasons for the award." 22. In the claim submitted by the plaintiffs before the arbitrator, interest on the outstanding amount at the rate of 18% per annum was demanded. The question of award of interest was as such specifically referred for arbitration. He is requested to give reasons for the award." 22. In the claim submitted by the plaintiffs before the arbitrator, interest on the outstanding amount at the rate of 18% per annum was demanded. The question of award of interest was as such specifically referred for arbitration. Therefore, if the arbitrator had awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the outstanding amount, he cannot be said to have misconducted himself and the proceedings. 23. The award of various sums under difference heads by the arbitrator has been made on consideration of the material placed before him by the parties. This court cannot sit in appeal over the conclusions arrived at by the arbitrator by re examining and re-assessing such evidence Even if such conclusions are wrong on the basis of the material available on the record, the arbitrator cannot be held guilty of misconduct. 24. No other point was urged before me by the parties. 25. I, therefore, hold that the arbitrator had not misconducted himself and the proceedings. The issue is decided accordingly against the defendants/objectors. Belief: 26. As a result, the objections filed by the defendants, being O. M. P, No. 560/94, are dismissed. The award filed by the arbitrator is made the rule of the Court and a decree for Rs. 5,10,486 is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in terms of the award. The plaintiffs shall further be entitled to future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs. 3,62,107 from the date the award was filed in the court that is 26-7-1994 till the date of payment of the amount. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Petition dismissed.