ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 19 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') M.P. State Warehousing Corporation and its authorities have called in question the sutainability of the award passed in Reference case No. 16/88 by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal. 2. The non-applicant filed an application of reference under Section 7 of the Act before the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal Bhopal claiming Rs. 1,24,144/- and interest thereon @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of reference petition till its realisation. The facts, as unfurled, are that the Respondent's percentage rate tender dated 27.4.83 for "fabrication, supply and erection of tubular trusses" for the construction of 8,000 metric tonnes capacity godown at Sagar was accepted by the Petitioner-Corporation on 12.5.83. An agreement was executed vide Ex.P/1 on 22.8.83. The contract amount of work was Rs. 3,93,250/- and the time allowed for completion of work was 1 1/2 months from the date of issue of work order. The work of civil construction in this regard was got done through other agencies. The competent authority of the Corporation, namely, the Chief Engineer, issued the order to the Petitioners to commence the work on 25.8.83. It is relevant to state here that 45 days was the stipulated time for completion of the work excluding rainy season from 16th June to 15th October and, therefore, the date stipulated for completion of work expired on 30.11.83. As per the agreement their terms of payment were that 95% of the value of the order would be negotiated through their Banker against the materials received at the site and the rest 5% after erection of trusses. They sent three consignments of the materials and delivered the same to the Corporation but the authorities of the Corporation did not take interest in this regard and measurements and release of 95% of payment as enjoined in the terms and conditions of the contract were not done. The request made by the non-applicant became ineffective. However, they proceeded to erect the trusses for one unit on 22.10.83 As pleaded Corporation paid to the claimant a sum of Rs. 79,318/-and Rs. 23,603/- only on 15.11.83 and 16.5.83 respectively. The authorities of the Corporation failed to record measurements in full and blocked the contractors' finance and forced him to pay heavy interest charges to the financiers. However, they proceeded to erect the trusses for one unit on 22.10.83 As pleaded Corporation paid to the claimant a sum of Rs. 79,318/-and Rs. 23,603/- only on 15.11.83 and 16.5.83 respectively. The authorities of the Corporation failed to record measurements in full and blocked the contractors' finance and forced him to pay heavy interest charges to the financiers. It was putforth by the claimant that he had to erect the trusses only after the other agencies had completed the civil construction but the said civil construction was not completed in time. In view of this factual matrix extension of time was prayed for on 15.11.83 but the owner did not grant reasonable extension and instead illegally terminated the contract. It was highlighted before the Tribunal that the Respondents therein had committed breach of contract by not providing clear site for erection, by not paying running bills and final payments in time as per the terms and conditions of the contract; by refusing to grant extension and eventually terminating the contract and forfeiting the security deposit. Making such allegation the claimants claimed compensation to cover the loss due to infructuous overhead charges amounting to Rs. 46,747/-, the loss of profit amounting to Rs. 27,390/- interest upto 31-3.88 amounting to Rs. 23,884/- reimbursement of recovery of extra cost of expenses illegally debited amounting to Rs. 22, 498/-,and a sum of Rs. 3,625/- towards final bill dues. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 1,24,144/- was claimed. 3. The Respondents-owners resisted the claims of the Petitioners contending, inter alia, that the period of contract was for 1 1/2 months without excluding the rainy season and, therefore, the time for completion of the work expired on 9.10.83. It was putforth that the claimants never delivered the materials at the spot and never came for physical verification of the materials which was done on 21.2.83. It is also stated that the claimants failed to submit the bills and, therefore, the Respondents had prepared the bills and made payment on 15.11.83 in accordance with the contract agreement. The claimants received the running bills and also the final bill without raising any protest and accepted the bills on full and final settlement. It was also pleaded that the Petitioners did not apply to the competent authority i.e. the Construction Engineer, for extension of time and, therefore, no extension was granted. The claimants received the running bills and also the final bill without raising any protest and accepted the bills on full and final settlement. It was also pleaded that the Petitioners did not apply to the competent authority i.e. the Construction Engineer, for extension of time and, therefore, no extension was granted. It was also indicated that the contracted quantity of steel trusses to be fabricated, supplied and erected by the Petitioners was about 55,000 Kgms, but the Petitioners could supply only 15,168.38 Kgs upto payment of first running bill dated 15.11.83 and thereafter, supplied 1,229.87 Kgs, but failed to show the proportionate progress and exhibited utter failure to complete the work within the stipulated time. It was also stated that the Petitioners had received correct payment and nothing is due to the claimants. The Respondents before the Tribunal justified their action in terminating the contract of the claimants and for-feited earnest money and security deposit. It was also stated that after the claimants' contract was terminated, the work was given to M/s Surya Pipe Works and excessive expenditure was done which was to be recovered from the Petitioners but they had waived the same as the bill had been finalised in full and final settlement. 4. Before the Tribunal a preliminary objection was taken with ragard to the maintainability of the reference, as it was filed without referring the dispute to the Chief Engineer as is required under Clause 34 of the contract-agreement. The Tribunal dealt with the preliminary objection and recorded the conclusion that the reference was mainainable. The Tribunal after considering the evidence brought on record came to hold that the stipulated period for completion of work expired on 9.10.83; the Respondents had allowed the extention to the Petitioners to complete the work by 29.11.83; the contention that the parties had agreed that the Respondents-owners should pay 95% value of the materials supplied as they received was unacceptable; the Respondents have committed breach of contract by terminating the contract in a wrongful manner; the claimant is not entitled to the loss due to infructuous overhead charges' the claimant is entitled to Rs. 19,662.50 paise towards loss of profit and Rs. 2,066.50 towards interest; the claimnat is further entitled to Rs. 22,612.40 paise towards recovery of extra cost. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 42,341.40 and awarded interest at the rate of 12 p.a. on Rs. 19,662.50 paise towards loss of profit and Rs. 2,066.50 towards interest; the claimnat is further entitled to Rs. 22,612.40 paise towards recovery of extra cost. Thus, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 42,341.40 and awarded interest at the rate of 12 p.a. on Rs. 35,102.50 paise from the date of filing of the petition. 5. Assailing the aforesaid award it is contended by Mr. Gohil learned Dy. A.G. that the Tribunal has erred in law in its conclusion that the Department has committed breach of contract. It is his further submission that the Tribunal has misdirected itself while interpreting Clause 8 of the contract. He has seriously criticised the conclusion whereby the non-applicant's claim has been accepted on the ground that the said conclusions are against the material on record and, in fact exhibits perversity of approach. Resisting, the aforesaid submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. S. Rao, learned Counsel for the non-applicant, has contended that on consideration of the totality of circumstances the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there had been breach of contract, by the present applicants and the said finding being based on proper appreciation of the materials on record cannot be regarded as perverse warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. His further submission is that the claims which have been allowed by the Tribunal, deserve to be allowed inasmuch as the claimant had supported its plea with adequate evidence. It is further contended by him even assuming the interpretation of Clause 8 by the Tribunal is incorrect then also the other ancillary factor go a long way to prove that the Petitioners herein had committed breach of contract. 6. To appreciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, we have carefully perused the award and scrutinised the terms of the agreement. Trubunal's finding with regard to Breach of contract is based on the conclusion that the time is not the essence on contract as under Clause 10 of the contract-agreement there is a clause for extension of time. That apart, the Petitioners had extended the time. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of M/S Hind Constructions v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 720 . That apart, the Petitioners had extended the time. The Tribunal has placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of M/S Hind Constructions v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 720 . In the case at hand the time stipulated for completion of the work as per the agreement was 9.10.83 and extension of time was prayed for by the non-applicant and the Construction Engineer by letter dated 22.11.83 (Ex P/5) requested the Petitioner to take up the remaining work and complete the work expeditiously. Thus, there was extension of time beyond the stipulated period, and hence the Tribunal has rightly held that the time was not the essence of the contract. 7. On a close scrutiny of the material on record, we find that the present Petitioners had not given any notice to the claimants, non-applicant herein, warning him to complete the work by a particular date, failing which action would be taken under Clause 8 of the agreement. The Tribunal has held that when time was not the essence of the contract and there was no notice of warning to the contractor, the termination of the contract was unjustified. Quite apart from the above the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the Construction Engineer has invoked clauses 8,10 and 44 of the contract-agrement for terminating the contract of the non-applicant. On a perusal of the clauses in the agreement we find that Clause 7 relates to compensation for delay; Clause 8 relates to action when conduction becomes liable for levy of penalty; Clause 10 relates to extension of time and Clause 44 operates in the sphere which dealt with penalty for breach of contract by the contractor which authorises the Corporation to forfeit the security deposit and such other ancillary factors. After reproducing Clause 8, the Tribunal has opined that under the said clauses any one of the three measures could have been taken by the owner but the owner cannot take recourse to two of them at a time. Mr. Gohil has impressed upon us that the Tribunal has misdirected itself by holding that when Sub-clauses (a) and (c) were taken recourse to by the Corporation and its authorities, there has been a breach of contract. Mr. Gohil has impressed upon us that the Tribunal has misdirected itself by holding that when Sub-clauses (a) and (c) were taken recourse to by the Corporation and its authorities, there has been a breach of contract. We find that the Tribunal has held that the time was not the essence of the contract and without notice there was termination of the contract and, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the rescission of contract was not justified. To appreciate the submission of Mr. Gohil relating to taking recourse to two of the sub-clauses of Clause 8 of the contract-agreement it is essential to refer to the various parts of Clause 8 which reads as under: Clause 8 Action when contractor become liable for levy of penalty, In any case in which, under any clause/clauses of this contract, the contractor shall have rendered himself liable to pay compensation amounting to the whole of this security deposit (whether paid in lumpsum or deducted by instalments) or committed a breach of any of the terms contained in this contract or in case of abandonment of the work owing to the serious illness or death of the contractor or any other case, the Construction Engineer on behalf of the Corporation shall have power to adopt any of the following courses as it may deem best to its interest. (a) To rescind the contract (for which rescission notice in writing to the contractor under the hand of Construction Engineer shall be conclusive evidence), and in which case the security deposit of the contractor shall stand forfeited and be absolutely at the disposal of the Corporation. (b) To employ labour paid by the Corporation and the supply materials to carryout the work or any part of the work, debiting the contractor with the cost of the labour and the price of the materials (of the amount of which cost and price a certificate of the Construction Engineer shall be final and conclusive against the contractor) and crediting him with the value of the done, in all respects in the same manner and at the same rates as if it has been carried out by the contractor under the terms of this contract or the cost of the labour and the price of the materials as certified by the Construction Engineer whichever is less. The certificate of the Construction Engineer as to the value of the work done shall be final and conclusive against the contractor. (c) To measure up the work of the contractor, and to take such part thereof as shall be unexecuted out of his hands, and to give it to another contractor to complate, in which case, any expenes which may be incurred in excess of the sum which would have been paid to the original contractor. If the whole work has been executed by him (of the amount of which excess, the certificate in writing of the Construction Engineer, shall be final and conclusive) shall be borne and paid by the original contractor and may be deducted from any money due to him by the Corporation under the contract or otherwise or from his security deposit or the proceeds of sale thereof or a sufficient part thereof. In the event of any of the above courses being adopted by the Construction Engineer on behalf of the Corporation, the contractor shall have no claim to compensation for any loss sustained by him by reason of his having purchased or procured any materials or entered into any engagements or made any advances on account of or with a view to the execution of work or performance of any contract. And in case the contract shall be rescinded under the provisions aforesaid, the contractor shall not be entitled to recover or he paid any sum for any work therefor actually performed under the contract, unless and untill the Construction Engineer certifies in writing the performance of such and the value payable in respect thereof and he shall only be entitled to be paid the value so certified. Scrutinising the anatomy of the aforesaid clause, it is graphically clear that the owner has given itself the privilege to follow any one of the modes. On a fair and objective reading of the provisions in the clause it is apparent that they cover three different fields. If a recourse is taken to Sub-clause (b) or (c) there shall be no forfeiting of the security deposit because the forfeiture only takes place when there is a rescission of contract. When action is taken under Sub-clause (b) or (c) there is no rescission of contract and there is no forfeiture. Every part of clause has its own independent existence. When action is taken under Sub-clause (b) or (c) there is no rescission of contract and there is no forfeiture. Every part of clause has its own independent existence. True it is, the Tribunal has taken exception to the fact while rescinding the contract, the Department has taken recourse to Clause (c). The exception taken is justified if it is probed deeply. To eleborate, assuming a contractor has executed more than 90% of work but there is delay for the rest then it can be taken up from him and given to another and the cost is deducted from the bill of the original contractor or otherwise or from his security deposit. If the cost is less than the security deposit, then the balance would be refundable to the contractor. Thus, Clause 8 (a) is more rigorous than Clause 8 (c), and Clause 8 (c) at times in a given case may also become rigorous. Hence, the simultaneous recourse to all or even to two courses is impermissible and, therefore, the Tribunal has held it to be a technical breach of contract or to put it otherwise the rescission of the contract is not in accordance with the terms of the contract. This finding coupled with the conclusion that the time is not the essence of the contract and no prior notice was given to the contractor, renders the view taken by the Tribunal with regard to breach of contract by the Petitioners as invulnerable, 8. Now we shall proceed to deal with the claims allowed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has allowed Rs. 19362.50 paise towards loss of profit. This figure has been arrived at by computing the profit at 5% of the total cost. This conclusion is a reasonable one and cannot be found fault with. The second claim which has been allowed with regard to interest on 23.3.84 because of the delay in payment of the running bill. The Tribunal after discussing at lenght has granted interest of Rs. 2,066.50 paise on this count. On perusal of the reasonings given by the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the approach of the Tribunal is correct and infallible. The Tribunal was partially allowed the claim of the non-applicant which relates to recovery of extra cost. The Tribunal on this score has taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 2,066.50 paise on this count. On perusal of the reasonings given by the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the approach of the Tribunal is correct and infallible. The Tribunal was partially allowed the claim of the non-applicant which relates to recovery of extra cost. The Tribunal on this score has taken into consideration the amount of Rs. 15,440/- which was deducted from the Petitioners' final bill and has added 12% p.a. interest on it which makes the total of Rs. 20,612.40 paise. There is no material irregularity in reaching such a conclusion inasmuch as the Trubunal has already held that the rescission of the contract was illegal. The Tribunal on such a finding has concluded as logically corollary that the action of the owner being unjustified entitles the non-applicant herein to receive the amount deducted from the final bill. 9. In view of the foregoing premises, we find that the award passed by the Tribunal is neither perverse nor does it exhibit any kind of material irregularity warranting interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. Consequently, the revision petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.