Munmohan Sarin, J. (Oral) ( 1 ) BY this order, I would he disposing of IA. 440/97, being objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the suit. The petitioner has filed this petition i. e. Suit No. 1687-A/95 under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act, for making the award bearing CA No. CWE/p/d-15/86-87 dated 7. 6. 1995 rule of the Court. ( 2 ) NOTICE of the filing of the award was duly issued to the partics. Respondent Filed the aforesaid objections. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objections are barred by limitation. The objections are stated to have been filed on 14. 12. 1996. In this case, notice of Filing of the award was served on Union of India on 25. 1. 1996. As no notice had been served on respondent No-2-Commander Works Engineer (Project), Delhi Cantt. , the Court on 4. 10. 1996, directed that notice he sent to respondent No. 2, returnable on 20. 1. 1996. Notice was received by respondent No. 2 on 26. 11. 1996 and objections were duly filed within 30 days i. e. on 14. 12. 1996. This would raise the question whether service on respondent No. 1. Union of India, the notice of filing of Union of India was a complete service with all the relevant particulars of the work to enable Filing of objections or not? ( 3 ) AT this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he gives up the objection with regard to the limitation and the matter be disposed of on merits. ( 4 ) THE award in question has been perused by me. The award is a non-speaking award. From a perusal of the award, it becomes apparent that the parties had been given the fullest opportunity to file their pleadings, adduce evidence and make submissions. The award is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In fact, no grievance on this aspect is agitated-before me. ( 5 ) OUT of the award in respect of 15 claims, the objections Filed relate only to two claims, namely, claim Nos. 5 and 6. In claim No. 5, the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 5015. 00 on account of toss suffered by the petitioner claimant for non-issuance of coal in full quantity. The objection raised has been perused by me. 5 and 6. In claim No. 5, the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 5015. 00 on account of toss suffered by the petitioner claimant for non-issuance of coal in full quantity. The objection raised has been perused by me. This relates to the non-intimation of the requirement of coal by advance notice of 7 days, as per note B of Schedule B. Further, it is contended that coal was to be issued to the contractor only to procure the bricks/tiles. The First submission being that the demand was made late and there was no time left for the department to issue the coal. Besides, major work had been completed by that date and non-issuance did not result in any toss to petitioner. These are objections, which are purely on merits. It is not the province of this Court to sit in appeal over the Finding of facts reached by the arbitrator. Besides, this is a non-speaking award and the Court cannot go behind the award and then examine the justification or non-justification of the same. The objection is without merit and is dismissed. ( 6 ) THE second objection relates to the claim of the petitionre for the wages of the watchman Chowkidar. for the period after 31. 12. 1997 and till the buildings were handed over to the users. This again is a mailer, which goes purely to appraisement of evidence as to whether claimant was entitled to the same or not? THE award does not suffer from any infirmity or error apparent on the face of the award. Accordingly, award is made rule of the Court. Decree in terms of the award be drawn. RESPONDENTS are directed to make the payment within 60 days, failing which the petitioner shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum on. the principal awarded amount.