JUDGMENT R.L. KHURANA, J.—The word of "Construction of Diversion, Intake and tunnels including Adit of Sanjay Vidyut Pariyojna Bhaba Augmentation Project", in Kinnaur District of the State was awarded to the plaintiff Messrs Asian Tech. limited, vide agreement No. BCC-l/BA-88-1 dated 1.10.1988. The total cost of the work was Rs. 6,87,33,500/-. The execution of the work was to be complete within 30 months to be reckoned from the 30th day of the date of issue of letter of award, that is, from 8.9.1988. Thus, the date of completion of the work was 7.4.1991. During the execution of the work, disputes and differences arose between the parties relating to performance as also with regard to the application and interpretation of certain terms and conditions of the agreement. Since Clause ! 25 of the contract agreement inter-alia, provided for the settlement of the disputes between the parties arising out of the contract by arbitration by two Arbitrators, one to be nominated by the plaintiff and the other by the defendant, H.P. State Electricity Board, the plaintiff by invoking such Clause 25 of the contract agreement, nominated Er. V.M. Bajaj, former Executive Engineer of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation as one of the Arbitrator and called upon the defendant to nominate the other Arbitrator. The defendant accordingly nominated Er. O.C. Kaushal, Chief Engineer, Larji Hydel Project, as the other Arbitrator. 2. The two Arbitrators entered upon the reference on 3.12.1993 and appointed Er. S.R. Shah, former Chairman-cum-Managing Director, NEEPCO to be the Umpire in terms of Clause 25 of the contract agreement. 3. The plaintiff in its statement of facts and claims submitted before the Arbitrators claimed a sum of Rs. 2,29,91,472,26 paise under various heads. The defendant Board also submitted its counter-claim to the tune of Rs. 5,68,60,000/ - against the plaintiff. 4. On the basis of the claims and counter-claim preferred by the parties, following issues were framed by the Arbitrators:— 1. Whether the claimant-Contractor are entitled to the claims against the respondent-Board as filed in their statement of facts and claims in para 318 and if so, to what extent? 2. Whether the respondent-Board are entitled to raise counter-claim for Rs. 568.60 lacs against the claimant-Contractor, as filed by the respondent-Board on account of the delayed completion of the Project and if so, to what extent? 2. Whether the respondent-Board are entitled to raise counter-claim for Rs. 568.60 lacs against the claimant-Contractor, as filed by the respondent-Board on account of the delayed completion of the Project and if so, to what extent? While answering issue No. 1 partly in favour of the plaintiff, the learned Arbitrators awarded a sum of Rs. 52,84,387.00 under various claims to the plaintiff against the total claim of Rs. 2,29,91,472.26 paise, as under:— Claim No . Amount claimed Subject Amount awarded 1. Rs. 65,16,076.00 On account of compensation for loss due to under utilisation of men, machinery and setup in the contract period. Nil 2. Rs. 59,64,930.90 On account of enhancement of rates due to unanticipated geological conditions and restrictions on usage of rope-way. Rs. 10,00,000.00 3. Rs. 57,23,978.00 On account of compensation for increased expenditure on work due to prolonged period of completion. Rs. 24,62,123.00 4. Rs. 13,07,469.00 On account of abnormal watering. Nil 5 Rs. 1,37,347.00 On account of reimbursement of bank guarantee charges beyond 7.4.1991. Nil 6. Rs. 1,14,047.56 On account of reimbursement on Insurance premium beyond 7.4.1991. Nil 7 Rs. 4,53,423.00 On account of losses to be compensated on delayed payments on bills and advances Nil 8. Rs. 1,47,840.00 On account of item for steel and rock bolts. Nil 9. Rs. 1,53,764.00 On account of unanticipated increase in price of Petroleum products due to Gulf levy. Nil 10. Claim withdrawn by the Plaintiff. 11. Rs. 95,972.00 On account of interest on advance. Nil 12. Claim Withdrawn by the Plaintiff. 13. Claim withdrawn by the Plaintiff. 14. Rs. 36,943.00 On account of claim for refund for excess hire charges of machineries recovered. Nil 15. Rs. 18,39,682.70 On account of R.C.C. lagging. Rs. 18,22,264.00 16. Rs. 5,00,000.00 Cost of arbitration Proceedings. Nil Total Rs. 2,29,91,471.2C Rs. 52,84,387.00 In addition to the above the learned Arbitrators further allowed simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the awarded amounts in favour of (he plaintiff from 3.12.1993 (the date of entering into reference by the Arbitrators) till the date of the award, that is, 18.5.1995 and from the date of award to the date of decree or payment, whichever is earlier. The learned Arbitrators decided issue No. 2 against the defendant and resultantly nothing was awarded in its favour. The award was made by the learned Arbitrator on 18.5.1995. The learned Arbitrators decided issue No. 2 against the defendant and resultantly nothing was awarded in its favour. The award was made by the learned Arbitrator on 18.5.1995. Such award has been filed in this Court for being made the rule of the Court. No objections have been preferred by the plaintiff-company to the award being made the rule of the Court. The defendant-Board has filed objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It has been averred that the Arbitrators have misconducted themselves and the proceedings inasmuch as Clause 25 of the contract entered into between the parties specifically require that the Arbitrators shall assign reasons under all circumstances on which their decision is based. However, no such reasons have been assigned and given by the Arbitrators while awarding amounts under various claims in favour of the plaintiff and while rejecting the claim of the defendant in toto. It has further been averred that the Arbitrators while making the award have travelled beyond the limits of the contract and the scope of the reference. The Arbitrators also misconducted themselves and the proceedings in awarding the pendente lite interest in favour of the plaintiff in complete violation of Clause 9-B of the contract under which no interest .was payable. 5. The objections are being resisted and contested by the plaintiff-company. It has been pleaded that the Arbitrators have neither misconducted themselves nor the proceedings. They have acted within their jurisdiction and the scope of the reference. The entire evidence led before them by the parties was properly assessed and appreciated. The award made is legal and valid. Detailed reasons for each and every finding have been duly recorded. It was accordingly p^yed by the plaintiff-company that the award dated 18.5.1995 by the Arbitrators be made the rule of the Court and a decree in terms thereof be passed. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by this Court on 12.3.1996:— 1. Whether the Arbitrator has misconducted himself, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the Arbitrator has travelled beyond the scope of arbitration agreement and reference? OPP 3. Relief. Evidence in the form of affidavits was led by the parties. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:— Issue Nos. 1 and 2. Whether the Arbitrator has travelled beyond the scope of arbitration agreement and reference? OPP 3. Relief. Evidence in the form of affidavits was led by the parties. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:— Issue Nos. 1 and 2. Both the issues are being taken up and discussed together as they are co-related and inter-connected. At the very outset, it has been contended on behalf of the defendant-Board that the Arbitrators have misconducted themselves and the proceedings, since they have failed to give reasons for the conclusions arrived at by them. Clause 25 of the contract dated 1.10.1988, entered into between the parties and which relates to reference of the dispute to arbitration, provides:— CLAUSE - 25: SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES BY ARBITRATION "Except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to the meaning and interpretation of the terms of contract, specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship or materials used in the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or thing whatsoever in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof or relating to termination of recession, or delay in the execution and all consequences thereof of the contract, shall be referred for arbitration to two arbitrators, one to be nominated by the contractor and the other by the Chief Engineer, SVP Bhaba and these two arbitrators shall select an umpire by mutual agreement. It will be no objection to any such appointment that the arbitrators/umpire, so appointed are/is Government/Board servant that they/he had to deal with matters concerning the contract relates and that in the course of their/his duties as Government/Board servant(s), they/he had expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. In case, the arbitrators/umpire to whom dispute/difference, so referred, are/is unable to function as such at any stage for any reason whatsoever or their/his award being set aside by the Court for any other reason, other arbitrators/umpire shall be appointed in the same manner as indicated above. In case, the arbitrators/umpire to whom dispute/difference, so referred, are/is unable to function as such at any stage for any reason whatsoever or their/his award being set aside by the Court for any other reason, other arbitrators/umpire shall be appointed in the same manner as indicated above. Such arbitrators/umpire shall be entitled to procure with the reference from the stage at which it had been laid by their/his predecessors or to conduct the proceedings afresh, as they/he may deem fit or as the case may be. It is also a term of the contract that the party invoking arbitration shall specify the dispute(s) to be referred to the arbitration under this clause together with the amount(s) claimed in respect of each dispute. If work under the contract has not been completed when a dispute on any matter whatsoever is referred to arbitration, the contractor shall not be entitled to suspend such work to which the dispute relates and payment to the contractor shall be continued to be made in terms of the contract. It is also a term of the contract that if the contractor(s) does/do not prefer any claim(s) in writing within 90 (ninety) days of the date on which the dispute first arises or date of intimation of the preparation of the bill therefore, which is earlier, the claim of the contractor will be deemed to have been waived and absolutely barred and the HPSEB shall be discharged and released of all the liabilities under the contract in respect of such claim. Likewise, all dispute(s) referred to above shall be preferred as provided above within 90 (ninety) days of the final bill otherwise all claim(s) shall stand extinguished provided, in the event of rejection of contractor(s) claim(s) by the HPSEB the contractor shall within 30 days after receiving intimation in writing of such decision shall give notice in writing to the Chief Engineer requesting him that the matter may be referred to the arbitration. In all cases referred for arbitration, the arbitrators umpire shall assign reasons under all circumstances, on which their/his decision is based. The arbitrators/umpire, from time to time, with the consent of the parties enlarge time for making and publishing the award. The decision of the arbitrators or the umpire as the case may be shall be conclusive, final and binding on the parties. The arbitrators/umpire, from time to time, with the consent of the parties enlarge time for making and publishing the award. The decision of the arbitrators or the umpire as the case may be shall be conclusive, final and binding on the parties. Subject to the provisions of the contract to the contrary as aforesaid the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and the rules made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to all arbitration proceedings under this clause." There is no dispute that under the abovesaid terms, it is obligatory on the Arbitrators to give reasons for the conclusions arrived at by them. Therefore, the question which arises for determination is whether the Arbitrators in the present case have given the reasons for the conclusions arrived at by them. In order to determine whether the impugned award dated 18.5.1995 contains reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at by the Arbitrators, it will first have to be seen as to what is the meaning of the word "reasons". Following the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, (1972(2) SCC 836), this Court in Messrs. Continental Construction Ltd. v. H.RS.E.B. (1996(2) Sim.LC. 264) has held that "reasons" are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. 7. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala and another v. K. Kurian P. Paul (AIR 1992 Kerala 180), has held that the literal meaning of "reason" is "a ground or motive for a belief or action". The rationale of the requirement of reasons is that reasons assure that the Arbitrator has not acted capriciously. Reasons reveal the grounds on which the Arbitrator reached the conclusion which adversely affects the interests of a party The contractual stipulation of reasons mean "proper, adequate reasons". Such reasons shall not only be intelligible but shall be "a reason connected with the case which the Court can see is a proper reason". The award made by the Arbitrators, therefore, is required to be examined in the light of the above principle. Claim No. 2 8. The Arbitrators, under this claim, have awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as against the amount of Rs. The award made by the Arbitrators, therefore, is required to be examined in the light of the above principle. Claim No. 2 8. The Arbitrators, under this claim, have awarded a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, as against the amount of Rs. 59,64,930.90 paise claimed by the plaintiffs, on account of enhancement of rates due to unanticipated geological conditions and restrictions on usage of ropeway. 9. While awarding the said sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, the Arbitrators have observed, after nothing down the rival contentions and submissions made before them by the parties, as under:— "We, the Arbitrators have examined the submissions and contentions of both the parties in detail and are convinced that the adverse geological characteristics of the underground work i.e. tunnel, were not as envisaged or anticipated by both the parties at the time of tender/ signing of the agreement. This is also evident from the assessments and recommendations of the geologist that during the excavation of the tunnel, alignment of the tunnel had to be modified. The geological report dated 19.10.92 by p.m. Jalote and Ashok Kumar on the tunnel alignment indicates that the construction of the tunnel from Adit junction towards intake was full of difficulties and the worst tunnelling conditions were met at RD 380 metres from the Adit junction towards intake where the faces collapsed in June 1990 with heavy ingress of water continued up to September, 1990 and the work remained suspended due to this reason for many months. It has also been pointed out therein that the foliation shears and glide cracks caused about 4 rn. high over break and wedge failures from RD 510 to RD 553 and this situation was likely to continue further for considerable length. The geologist also indicated that there was reduction of rock cover up to 1100 m from Adit junction which had been corroborated by the presence of glide cracks from RD 510 m to RD 553 m. from Adit junction towards intake and further opined that the tunnel was expected to encounter bad geological conditions for another 450 mtrs. length. The geologist also indicated that there was reduction of rock cover up to 1100 m from Adit junction which had been corroborated by the presence of glide cracks from RD 510 m to RD 553 m. from Adit junction towards intake and further opined that the tunnel was expected to encounter bad geological conditions for another 450 mtrs. length. The geologist also suggested to provide bend of 30° from the original alignment in order to achieve additional vertical cover of about 50 m. Also the joint inspection note of the geologist dated 8.2.92 states that from RD 570 m. to RD 600 m. foliation shears and glide cracks had been observed which caused wedge failures giving rise to the over break of 3 to 5 m. resulting in collapse of the face and indicated that these conditions were likely to continue up to 1100 mtrs. In fact the Respondent Board advised the Claimant Contractor to suspend the work in the cavity portion of the tunnel to carry out surface and subsurface observations. We agree that these unforeseen and hostile geological conditions encountered could not have been anticipated before the actual execution of the tunnel. This resulted in less progress of tunnelling, delay in completion of the works and also in monetary loss to the claimant Contractor for keeping their infrastructure without any production at site due to stoppage of work from June 1990 to May 1991 and decidedly was beyond the control of the Claimant Contractor Both the parties have given the cycle time of the tunnel excavation which we have gone through. Keeping all the above factors in view we are convinced that the Claimant Contractors are entitled to be compensated on account of the same. The Claimant Contractor have claimed the revision of the original tendered rates of the tunnel excavation. We have also gone through the analysis of the claimed revised rates given by the Claimant Contractor for the tunnel excavation and the quantities executed till 7.4.1991 and also the extent of bad geological reaches encountered and after the evaluation of all these, we award a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) in favour of the Claimant Contractor." 10. The learned Counsel for the defendant-Board has contended that the Arbitrators while allowing the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lacs only) in favour of the Claimant Contractor." 10. The learned Counsel for the defendant-Board has contended that the Arbitrators while allowing the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- have failed to appreciate and deal with Clause 8 of the notice inviting tender and clauses 2.5 and 2.7 of the agreement pointing out the regional geology and the meteorological characteristics (relief and climate) of the project area and the need pointed out to the interested parties to inspect the site and acquaint themselves with location and site condition. It was further contended that clause 5.3 of Chapter-V relating to "underground excavation" in Vol. II of the agreement specifically bars the claim. Clause 5.3 provides:— "The nature and character of strata likely to be encountered underground excavation have been indicated in Volume I of these documents. The Engineer-in-Charge does not, however, take any responsibility for variations, if any, that may be detected in actual excavation. The tenderer may make his assessment about the value and magnitude of work. No claim shall lie against the Board for inadequacy. As far contracted rates are concerned, no distinction shall be made on account of the strata being wet.” It was contended that the Arbitrators have failed to conform to the conditions contained in the arbitration agreement inasmuch as they have ignored the limits and restrictions laid down in the agreement. 11. It is well settled that an Arbitrator is a creature of the agreement. He cannot rewrite the contract between the parties, nor he can modify or amend the terms of the contract between the parties. So long as the contract between the parties is not held to be invalid or inoperative, the Arbitrator has to respect and conform to the terms and conditions contained therein. 12. In Associated Engineering Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and another (AIR 1992 SC 232), the Apex Court has held:— "The arbitrator cannot act arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or independently of the contract. His sole function is to arbitrate in terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract. If he has travelled outside the bounds of the contract, he has acted without jurisdiction. His sole function is to arbitrate in terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract. If he has travelled outside the bounds of the contract, he has acted without jurisdiction. But if he has remained inside the parameters of the contract and has construed the provisions of the contract, his award cannot be interfered with unless he has given reasons for the award disclosing an error apparent on the face of it. An Arbitrator who acts in manifest disregard of the contract acts without jurisdiction. His authority is derived from the contract and is governed by the Arbitration Act which embodies principles derived from a specialized branch of the law of agency (See : Mustill & Boyds Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, p. 641). He commits misconduct if by his award he decides matters excluded by the agreements (See : Halsburys Law of England, Volume II, Fourth Edition, para 622). A deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only manifest disregard of his authority or a misconduct on his part, but it may tantamount to a mala fide action. A conscious disregard of the law or the provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority vitiates the award. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in State of Punjab v. M/s. Chahal Engg. & Co. (AIR 1991 Punjab & Haryana 258), has held:— "The arbitrator must conform to the conditions contained in the arbitration agreement. Failure to carry out mandate in the agreement will render the award invalid. If he ignores such limits or restrictions, the award would be liable to be set aside for misconduct." 13. In the present case, the Arbitrators appear to have overlooked the terms of the contract, since while allowing claim No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff, they have shut their eyes to the various terms of the agreement, especially the terms referred to above. They have thus exceeded their jurisdiction. There is, therefore, an error apparent on the face of the award. Claim No. 3 14. As against the amount of Rs. 57,23,978/- claimed by the plaintiff, on account of compensation for increased expenditure on works due to prolonged period of completion, the Arbitrators have allowed this claim to the extent of Rs. 24,62,123/-. 15. There is, therefore, an error apparent on the face of the award. Claim No. 3 14. As against the amount of Rs. 57,23,978/- claimed by the plaintiff, on account of compensation for increased expenditure on works due to prolonged period of completion, the Arbitrators have allowed this claim to the extent of Rs. 24,62,123/-. 15. In awarding the said amount, the Arbitrators allowed escalation in the rates for various types of works over the agreed rates, as under:— A : OPEN EXCAVATION S,No . Description of Work Unit Agreed rate Enhanced rate awarded 1. Excavation in soft soil. m3 65/- 90/- 2. Excavation in rock. m3 200/- 280/- 3. RCC/PCC (M-150) m3 1,200/- 2,000/- 4. RCC/PCC (M-100) m3 1,050/- 1,500/- 5. Steel Reinforcement MT 11,300/- 14,000/- 6. Stone work m3 500/- 700/- B : UNDERGROUND WORK 1. Underground excavation m3 640/- 1,030/- 2. Overbreak m3 426/66 686/66 3. Steel supports MT 14,000/- 16,000/- 4. Shotcreting Per B ag 280/- 340/- 5. RCC/PCC (M-100) m3 1,200/- 1,500/- 6. RCC/PCC (M-250) m3 1,570/- 2,200/- 7. Steel reinforcement MT 11,500/- 12,500/- 8. Drilling holes for rock Bolts RM 100/- 140/- 9. Rock Bolts RM 160/- 200/- Clause 10C of the contract (Volume-I) deals with the price variations in labour costs, material cost, etc. Separate formulae have been prescribed for the purpose of calculating the increase/decrease in the price of materials and cost of labour. 16. The Arbitrators, while allowing escalation in the cost for various items, as indicated above, do not appear to have followed the formulae prescribed under Clause 10C of the contract. Nor any reasons have been advanced by them for allowing escalation in deviation of the terms contained in Clause 10C. 17. A Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Thermal Engineering Corporation, Bombay and others (1997 AIHC 2316), has held:— "Law is well-settled that an arbitrator is not a conciliator and cannot ignore the law or misapply it in order to do what he thinks just and reasonable. He is a Tribunal selected by the parties to decide their disputes according to law and so he is bound to follow and apply the law, and if he does not, he can be set right by Courts provided his error appears on the face of the award. He is a Tribunal selected by the parties to decide their disputes according to law and so he is bound to follow and apply the law, and if he does not, he can be set right by Courts provided his error appears on the face of the award. It is equally well-settled that where it is apparent not by construction of the contract but by merely looking at the contract that the arbitration travelled outside the permissible territory and thus exceeded his jurisdiction in making the award, it is an error going to the root of his jurisdiction. The arbitrator cannot act arbitrarily, irritionally, capriciously or independently of the contract. His sole function is to arbitrate in terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given him under the contract. If he has travelled outside the bounds of the contract, he has acted without jurisdiction. But if he has remained inside the parameters of the contract and has construed the provisions of the contract, his award cannot be interfered with unless he has given reasons for the award disclosing an error apparent on the face of it. A conscious disregard of the law or the provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority vitiates the award." 18. In the case before the High Court of Bombay, the relevant clause pertaining to reimbursement refund on variation of price of labour and materials, being Clause No. 75 was to the following effect:— "The Contractor shall be reimbursed or shall refund to the Corporation as the case may be the variation in the value of the work carried out from time to time, depending on whether the prices of materials and labour as a whole rise or fall, and the method adopted for such computations shall be as given below, it being clearly understood that the contractor shall have no claim for being reimbursed on the ground that the price of particular material or group of materials have risen beyond the limits of the presumption made in the following paras, nor shall the Corporation have any right to claim refund on the same grounds; nor will any variation be allowed on the grounds of rise in sales tax, octroi or any other Government duties." 19. As per the clauses, the Contractor was entitled to be reimbursed on account of variation of value of the work carried out from time to time depending upon the rise in the prices of materials and labour The variations for this purpose were to be computed by adopting the method set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) thereof. Paragraph (a) provided the method of computing the cost of materials, while paragraph (b) provided for the method of computing variations of cost of labour. 20 The contractor in the said case travelled beyond Clause 75 and awarded escalation to the extent of 69% in breach or contravention of the terms contained in Clause 75. The question arose whether on the face of prohibition contained in Clause 75 of the agreement, the arbitrator could award any escalation over and above what was permissible under the said Clause. 21. The High Court of Bombay, while answering the above question in the negative held that the arbitrator by ignoring the prohibition contained in Clause 75 of the contract, had widened his jurisdiction by deciding the claim of the contractor otherwise than in accordance with the said clause. He thus, had exceeded his jurisdiction by doing so. Consequently, the award of the arbitratory was set aside on the ground that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and the proceedings. 22. In the present case, the provisions contained in Clause 10C of the contract are similar to the provisions contained in Clause 75 in the case before the High Court of Bombay. Admittedly, the Arbitrators have allowed escalation in favour of the plaintiff at a higher rate by completely ignoring the prohibitions and restrictions contained in Clause 10C of the contract. Therefore, they have exceeded their jurisdiction and have thus misconducted themselves and the proceedings. 23. The Supreme Court in Alopi Prashad v. Union of India (AIR 1960 SC 588), while referring to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, has pointed out that the said Act did not enable a party to a contract to ignore the express covenants thereof, and to claim payment of consideration for performance of the contract at rates different from the stipulated rates, on a vague plea of equity. It was held that arbitrators were not justified in ignoring the express terms of the contract prescribing remuneration payable to the agents and in proceedings upon the basis of quantum merit. 24. It was held that arbitrators were not justified in ignoring the express terms of the contract prescribing remuneration payable to the agents and in proceedings upon the basis of quantum merit. 24. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ramnath International Construction (P) Ltd. (1996) 1 SCC 18, it has been observed that the arbitrator being a creature of the agreement is duty bound to enforce the terms of the agreement and cannot adjudicate a matter beyond the agreement itself. Claim No. 15 25. The Arbitrators have awarded a sum of Rs. 18,22,264/- on account of RCC lagging as against the claim of Rs. 18,39,682.70 p put forth by the plaintiff. 26. In awarding the amount of Rs. 18,22,264/- in favour of the plaintiff, the Arbitrators, after having noted the various contentions of the parties, have observed:— "We, the Arbitrators, have heard the arguments of both the parties and have gone through their submissions and documents placed before us. We have also gone through the Clause 7.01 of the Contract Agreement as relied upon by the respondent, The same does not debar the payment for the RCC lagging slabs and since the rate of the same is not given in the Schedule of Quantities and Rates, this shall be treated as an Extra Item and paid accordingly. Admittedly the RCC lagging slabs have been used by the Claimant Contractor for which they are entitled to claim the expenditure treating this as an Extra item. We have also gone through the analysis of rates of RCC lagging slabs given by both the parties and have come to the conclusion that Rs. 68/- per RCC lagging slab is justified rate. There is no dispute about the number of RCC lagging slabs i.e. 26,798 up to 31.12.1992. Therefore we award a sum of Rs. 18,22,264/- (Rupees Eighteen Lacs Twenty-Two Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Four only) in favour of the Claimant Contractor under this claim." Before the Arbitrators there was a dispute not only with regard to the rate of RCC lagging slabs, there was a dispute also with regard to the number of slabs used. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 68.65 p per slab. According to the defendant-Board, the rate per slab was Rs. 41.34 p. The Arbitrators awarded the rate of Rs. 68/- per slab to the plaintiff. However, while allowing that rate, no reasons therefore have been advanced by them. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 68.65 p per slab. According to the defendant-Board, the rate per slab was Rs. 41.34 p. The Arbitrators awarded the rate of Rs. 68/- per slab to the plaintiff. However, while allowing that rate, no reasons therefore have been advanced by them. Besides, they have also wrongly held that there was no dispute about the number of RCC lagging slabs. The Arbitrators, therefore, on this count also have misconducted themselves and the proceedings. Award of Interest 27. The Arbitrators have allowed simple interest at the rate of 18% per annum of the awarded amounts in favour of the plaintiff from 3.2.1993 (the date of entering upon the reference by the Arbitrators) till the date of award to the date of decree or payment, whichever is earlier. According to the defendant-Board, interest on delayed payments was not admissible under Clause 9-B of the Contract. Clause 9-B of the contract provides:— "The contractor agrees that no claim for interest or damages shall be entertained or payable by the Board in respect of any money or balances which may be lying with HPSEB owing to any dispute, difference or misunderstanding between the parties or in respect of any delay or omission on the part of the Engineer-in-Charge in making intermediate or final payments or in any other respect whatsoever. 28. In Ram Nath International Construction Pvt Ltd. v. State of U.R (1997 (6) SCALE 462), a similar provision came up for consideration. It was held that such provision did not exclude the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to award interest pendente lite. It was further held:— "... the power of the arbitrator to grant interest pendente lite is based on principles analogous to Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. Such interest is granted by the arbitrator in order to do complete justice between the parties. This is not a matter of substantive law as is the case regarding the arbitrators power to grant interest for the pre-reference period. Whether interest should be awarded pendente lite or not is a matter of discretion for the Court or the arbitrator. When parties go before an arbitrator, they expect that the disputes will be decided in accordance with law as they would have been decided, had the decision been of a Court of law. Whether interest should be awarded pendente lite or not is a matter of discretion for the Court or the arbitrator. When parties go before an arbitrator, they expect that the disputes will be decided in accordance with law as they would have been decided, had the decision been of a Court of law. Hence the arbitrator can exercise a power analogous to the power given to the Courts under Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to interest on the principal amount awarded by the arbitrator from the date of the reference till the date of the award. The appellant is, however, not entitled to any interest for the pre-reference period." In the present case, the Arbitrators have awarded only pendente lite interest. No interest has been awarded for the pre-reference period. Therefore, the Arbitrator cannot be said to have misconducted themselves in awarding interest pendente lite. Counter-claim of the defendant Board. 29. A counter-claim to the tune of Rs. 568.60 lacs was set up by the defendant-Board, on account of the delayed completion of the project. Nothing was awarded by the Arbitrators to the defendant-Board. While negating the counter-claim of the defendant-Board, the Arbitrators, after noting the contentions and submissions of the parties, have observed:— "We the Arbitrators, have examined the submissions and documents of both the parties placed before us and have gone through the relevant references made in this regard and have come to the conclusion that there is no force in the submissions and arguments of the respondent-Board and we accept the contentions of the claimant contractors, hence we reject the counter-claim of the Respondent-Board." Though, the Arbitrators were under an obligation, as per the terms of Clause 25 of the contract, to record reasons for their conclusions, no such reasons have been recorded for negating the counter-claim. The Arbitrators, thus, are guilty of having misconducted themselves and the proceedings. Relief. As a result of the findings recorded on issue Nos. 1 and 2 above, the objections to the award, being OMP No. 314 of 1995 are allowed and the award dated 18.5.1995 of the Arbitrators is set aside. Civil Suit No. 195 of 1995. 30. The Arbitrators, thus, are guilty of having misconducted themselves and the proceedings. Relief. As a result of the findings recorded on issue Nos. 1 and 2 above, the objections to the award, being OMP No. 314 of 1995 are allowed and the award dated 18.5.1995 of the Arbitrators is set aside. Civil Suit No. 195 of 1995. 30. Consequent upon the award dated 18.5.1995, having been set aside, the dispute between the parties is remitted for decision afresh by the Arbitrators to be appointed/nominated by the parties in terms of Clause 25 of the contract within a period of one month from today. The Arbitrators so appointed/nominated shall then enter upon the reference and adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties in accordance with law. The suit stands disposed of accordingly No order as to costs. Order accordingly.