A. K. Patnaik, J. — This is an appeal under Section 39 (vii) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against the judgment and order dated 8.6.93 of the learned Assistant District Judge, No.1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (Arb) No. 83 of 1983 setting aside the Award of the Arbitrator. 2. The facts briefly are that the appellant entered into an agreement dated 25.7.75 with the Food Corporation of India, the respondent herein, for transportation of food grains from Choraibari, Dharmanagar to the godowns of the said Corporation at Agartala. During the execution of the said agreement, certain disputes between the appellant and the respondent Corporation arose. Since the aforesaid agreement provided for an arbitration clause, the appellant filed an application before the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation on 23.5.79 to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the disputes and the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation appointed Sri GC Chatterjee, a retired Member of the West Bengal Higher Judicial Service as Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The appellant then filed his statement of claims and the respondent Corporation filed its objection before the said Arbitrator and after recording the evidence and hearing the parties the Arbitrator made his Award dated 24.6.83 and filed the same in the Court of Subordinate Judge, West Tripura, Agartala for making the Award a Rule of the Court. The respondent Corporation however filed objection to the Award under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Subordinate Judge heard the said objections and by judgment and order dated 15.2.85 set aside the Award on the ground that although by the order appointing the Arbitrator, the Arbitrator was required to give reasons for his Award, no reasons had been given in the Award. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge setting aside the Award, the appellant preferred First Appeal 3 of 1985 before this Court and by judgment dated 12.5.92, this Court held that in the absence of a stipulation in the arbitration agreement requiring the Arbitrator to give reasons for his Award, the Arbitrator was not required to give reasons and accordingly set aside the judgment and order dated 15.2.85 of the Subordinate Judge. The respondent Corporation then carried the matter to the Supreme Court and by judgment and order dated 13.10.92 in Civil Appeal No. 4476 of 1992 the Supreme Court while agreeing with this Court that the Award could not be set aside merely on the ground that the Arbitrator had not given reasons for his Award, held that this Court should have remitted that matter to the Subordinate Judge for considering the objections on the point of merit to the extent they were permissible in case of a non-speaking Award and while allowing the appeal in part restored the matter to the Subordinate Judge and directed him to dispose of the objections in accordance with law. The Assistant District Judge No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, thereafter heard the parties on the objections to the Award and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.93 setting aside the Award of the Arbitrator. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order of the learned Assistant District Judge setting aside the Award, the appellant has preferred his appeal. 3. Mr. AM Lodh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that by the impugned judgment and order the learned Assistant District Judge set aside the Award of the Arbitrator mainly on the ground that the Arbitrator acted beyond his jurisdiction in making the Award, but the respondent Corporation had at no stage in the arbitration proceeding raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the dispute. Mr. Lodh cited the decisions in JEMT Co-operative Society vs. General Assurance Society, AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 336 and in M/s Tarapore & Co vs. Cochin Shipyard Ltd, Cochin, AIR 1984 SC 1072 for his submission' that a party cannot raise new pleas which he has no raised before the Arbitrator and that having participated in the arbitration cannot now question the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the disputes. Mr. Lodh argued that since the respondent Corporation did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the disputes in question and acquired in the arbitration proceedings it cannot question the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator before the Court after the Award is made by the Arbitrator. Mr. Mr. Lodh argued that since the respondent Corporation did not raise any objection to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the disputes in question and acquired in the arbitration proceedings it cannot question the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator before the Court after the Award is made by the Arbitrator. Mr. Lodh further submitted that under clauses XIX of the agreement between the parties all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement whatsoever were to be referred to arbitration and therefore the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to decide the disputes raised by the appellant and the respondent Corporation before him and the Award made by the Arbitrator could not be set aside on the ground that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, Mr. Lodh cited the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Jagadish Chandra Saha, 1997 (3) GLT 385 in which the Court after examining a similar case of Award against the Food Corporation of India on disputes arising out of an agreement for transportation of food grains, held that there was no jurisdictional error on the part of the Arbitrator and that the Arbitrator rightly decided the arbitrability of the claims of the parties. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raipur Development Authority vs. M/s Chokhamal Contractors, AIR 1990 SC 1426 , for the proposition that the Award of the Arbitrator is generally j considered binding between the parties and that it cannot be set aside by the Court unless there is an error of law apparent on the face of it. 4. In reply to the aforesaid submissions, Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, contended that the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator was confined to the arbitration agreement between the parties. He submitted that clause XIX of the agreement between the parties contained the arbitration agreement and as per the said clause XIX dispute as to any matter the decision on which was expressly provided for in the contract was exclude from arbitration. He pointed out that the contract expressly provided that certain disputes were to be referred to the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation and that on such disputes the decision of the Regional Manager was final. According to Mr. He pointed out that the contract expressly provided that certain disputes were to be referred to the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation and that on such disputes the decision of the Regional Manager was final. According to Mr. Deb, therefore, on such matters on which the decision of the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation was final, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to make his Award. He cited the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dandakaranya Project vs. PC Corporation, AIR 1975 MP 152 and the decision of the Supreme Court in Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd vs. Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project & another, (1991) 1 SCC 498 in support of his submission that where on certain matters the decision of some authority other than the Arbitrator is to be final such matters are outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Mr. Deb further submitted that the contact between the parties in the present case would clearly show that some of the claims of the appellant such as higher rates of transportation and higher wages were totally contrary to the terms of the contract and were outside the contract between the parties and yet the Arbitrator had awarded some amounts in favour of the appellant towards such claims. The Award of the Arbitrator therefore was contrary and outside the very terms of the contract between the parties and was beyond his jurisdiction and the Award was liable to be set aside. In support of the submission that the Award of the Arbitrator contrary to the very terms of the contract was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, Mr. Deb cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Continental Construction Company Ltd vs. State of MP, (1988) 3 SCC 82 and Vishwanath Sood vs. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 657 . Mr. Deb also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tarapore & Company vs. State of MP, (1994) 3 SCC 521 , in which the Supreme Court held that in case of patent lack of jurisdiction, the Arbitrator could not assume jurisdiction on the basis of acquiescence of the parties and that an Arbitrator could not go out of the contract and if he did so the Award would be without jurisdiction. Finally, Mr. Deb submitted relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Company vs. Govt. Finally, Mr. Deb submitted relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Sudarsan Trading Company vs. Govt. of Kerala & others, (1989) 2 SCC 38 , that when challenge to the Award of the Arbitrator was on the ground that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction, evidence on matters not appearing on the face of it could be looked into for the purpose of finding out whether the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction. 5. On a reading of the decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Jagadish Chandra Saha, (supra) 1997 (3) GLT 385, we find that the Court after perusal of all available materials on record and after hearing the learned counsel on both sides held in para 12, of the judgment that there was no error apparent on the face of the Award and no jurisdictional error on the part of the Arbitrator. The said decision therefore was rendered on the basis of the materials available on record in that case and we cannot blindly follow the said decision without examining the contentions of the parties and the materials on record in this case for the purpose of finding out as to whether or not the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction in making Award. In M/s Sudarsan Trading Company vs. Govt. of Kerala & others, (supra), the Supreme Court made a distinction between the challenge to an Award on the ground of error apparent on the face of the Award and the challenge to an Award on the ground that the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction in making the Award and thereafter held that while in a case of challenge to an Award on the ground of error apparent on the face of the Award the Court could not look into' the contract between the parties unless it was incorporated in the Award, in a case of challenge to an Award on the ground that the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction, the Court could look into the contract and also the evidence on other matters not appearing on the face of the Award for the purpose of finding out as to whether or not the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator had been exceeded while making the Award. In the said decision, however, the Supreme Court cautioned that one has to determine the distinction between an error within the jurisdiction and an error in excess of the jurisdiction and that while the Court would not set aside ah Award made by the Arbitrator on the ground that there was. an error within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, the Court would set aside the Award if there was an error in excess of the jurisdiction. In the said decision, the Supreme Court in particular held that the questions relating to interpretation of contract were within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. 6. In Tarapore & Co vs. State of MP, (supra), the Supreme Court made a distinction between a patent lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and a latent lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitrator, and held that in a case of patent lack of jurisdiction the Arbitrator would lack jurisdiction in the sense that a subject matter was not amenable at all to its decision whereas in a case of latent lack of jurisdiction the best that could be said was that the terms of the agreement being what they were, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim. In the said decision, the Supreme Court further held that while in the case of patent lack of jurisdiction, acquiescence of the parties would not be material inasmuch as it was settled law that by agreement jurisdiction could not be conferred, in the case of latent lack of jurisdiction, acquiescence of the parties might be relevant. 7. In the said case of Tarapore & Co vs. State of MP, the Supreme Court referring to its earlier decision in Managing Director, J & K Handicrafts, Jammu vs. Good Luck Carpets, (1990) 4 SCC 740 ; Associated Engineering Co vs. Govt. of AP, (1991) 4 SCC 93 and Hindustan Construction Co Ltd vs. State of J & K, (1992) 4 SCC 217 , held : “In the aforesaid view of the matter, the contention of Sri Nariman that the error, if any committed by the Arbitrators, was an error within their jurisdiction (the same being relatable to interpretation of the contract) and such an error is not amenable to correction by Courts as held in Sudarshan Trading Co vs. Govt. of Kerala does not really survive for consideration, as in the case where an Arbitrator travels beyond the contract the Award would be without jurisdiction, because of what was held in Associated Engineer Co and Good Luck Carpets cases. The error in the present case cannot be regarded as one within jurisdiction, the same is, really an error of jurisdiction in so far as that para of Award is concerned which is relatable to increase in minimum wages. Needless to say that if an Arbitrator acts beyond jurisdiction, the same would amount to misconduct, (see para 10 of Hindustan Construction Co Ltd vs. State of J & K) because of which the Award would become amenable of being set aside by a Court.” In paragraph 25 of the judgment in Tarapore & Co vs. State of MP, the Supreme Court further observed : “Therefore, on the basis of what has been stated in Good Luck Carpets according to which if a challenge is made to the Award on the ground that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction, the only way to test the correctness is to look into the agreement itself because the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator flows from the reference and a reference can be only with regard to such disputes which are contemplated by the agreement, it cannot be held that the Arbitrators had no jurisdiction to make the Award because of lack of specific provision permitting the claim at hand. This does not conclude the matter. It has to be seen whether the terra of the agreement permitted entertainment of the claim by necessary implication. It may be stated that we do not accept the broad contention of Shri Nariman that whatever is not excluded specifically by the contract can be subject matter of claim by a contractor. Such a proposition will mock at the terms agreed upon. Parties cannot be allowed to depart from what they had agreed. Of course, if something flows as a necessary concomitant to what was agreed upon, Courts can assume that too as a part of the contract between the parties.” Thus, for finding out whether the Arbitrator had exceeded his jurisdiction, the Court has to examine the agreement itself to find out whether the agreement permitted either expressly or by implication the entertainment of a particular claim on which the Award has been made by the Arbitrator. 8. 8. In Vishwanath Sood vs. Union of India (supra) the arbitration agreement provided that "except where otherwise provided in the contract, all questions and disputes relating to matters stated in the said arbitration agreement would be referred to sole arbitration of a person appointed by the Chief Engineer and the Supreme Court held that the words except where otherwise provided in the contract" clearly excluded from the purview of arbitration matters like those mentioned in clause 2 of the contract between the parties in respect of which the dispute was to be decided by a higher official of the Department Similarly, in Dandakaranya Project vs. PC Corporation (supra), ( AIR 1975 MP 152 ), a Division Bench of the Madhy a Pradesh High Court found that clause 14 of the contract between the parties which provided for arbitration stipulated that except where otherwise provided in the contract all questions and disputes mentioned in the arbitration agreement were to be referred to sole arbitration of the Chief Engineer/Additional Chief Engineer and the Court held that the said words except where otherwise provided in the contract" clearly limited or controlled the operative part of arbitration clause 14 which otherwise was in comparative terms. The said decision of the Division Bench of the Madhy a Pradesh High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court in Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd vs. Chief Administrator. Dandakaranya Project & another (supra), (1991) 1 SCC 498 ) and the Supreme Court upheld the aforesaid decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that the arbitration agreement contained in clause 14 of the contract specifically excluded any dispute relating to rates which was to be decided by the Superintending Engineer as per clause 13 A of the agreement between the parties. The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, therefore, make it clear that where the arbitration clause itself excludes some matters from arbitration and the contract provides for decision on such matters by some other authority, an Award made by the Arbitrator on such matters is outside his jurisdiction. 9. So far as the present case is concerned the arbitration agreement which is contained in clause XIX of the contract between the parties is to the following effect : “... 9. So far as the present case is concerned the arbitration agreement which is contained in clause XIX of the contract between the parties is to the following effect : “... All disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement whatsoever (except as to any matter the decision on which is expressly provided for in the contract) shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person appointed by the Managing Director of the Food Corporation of India...” The aforesaid arbitration agreement therefore is of a comprehensive nature and covers all disputes and differences arising out of on in any way touching or concerning the agreement whatsoever. There are however two limitations in the aforesaid arbitration agreement. The first limitation is that the dispute or difference which is sought to be referred to arbitration must arise out of or must in any way touch or concern the agreement whatsoever. Accordingly, a dispute or difference which does not arise out of or does not touch or concern the agreement cannot be entertained by the Arbitrator and if the Arbitrator entertains such a dispute or difference he will travel beyond the contract and his Award on the said dispute would be without jurisdiction. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Tarapore & Co vs. State of MP (supra) the claim entertained by the Arbitrator must be permitted either expressly or by implication by the agreement between the parties and any claim which was not permitted by the agreement either expressly or by implication would be beyond the jurisdiction of die Arbitrator. The second limitation in the aforesaid arbitration agreement is that the Arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to decide any dispute or difference arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement if the matter relating to which the dispute or difference arises is to be decided by some authority other than the Arbitrator as per the express terms of the contract. This second limitation is like the limitation to the arbitration agreement in Vish wanath Sood vs. Union of India and Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd vs. Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project & another (supra), discussed above where the arbitration clause itself excluded some matters from arbitration and the contract provided for a decision on such matters by some other authority. This second limitation is like the limitation to the arbitration agreement in Vish wanath Sood vs. Union of India and Prabartak Commercial Corporation Ltd vs. Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project & another (supra), discussed above where the arbitration clause itself excluded some matters from arbitration and the contract provided for a decision on such matters by some other authority. Bearing in mind the aforesaid two limitations on the scope of arbitration as contained in the'arbitration agreement in clause XIX of the contract between the parties, we may now examine the different items in the Award of the Arbitrator in the present case to find out as to whether such Award was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. 10. The Award of the Arbitrator on issue No. 1 to issue No. 15 and the Award is to the following effect: (1) In respect of issue No. 1, the claimant shall, on account of his residuary dues for transportation charges he entitled to Rs. 4,28,870 only. (2) In respect of issue No. 2, the claimant shall, on account of his residuary dues in respect of actual distance, be entitled to Rs. 2,17,750 only. (3) In respect of issue No. 3, the claimant shall, on account of his residuary dues for transportation charges from and to Melaghar, Kumarghat and Pecharthal, be entitled to Rs. 1,70,235 only. (4) In respect of issue No. 4, the claimant shall, on account of handling and labour charges, be entitled to Rs. 1,09,855 only. (5) In respect of issue No. 5, the claimant shall, on account of refund of admissible transit shortage, be entitled to Rs. 48,462 only. (6) In respect of issue No. 6, the claimant shall, on account of charges for detention of trucks, be entitled to Rs. 11,000 only. (7) In respect of issue No. 7, the claimant shall on account of supply of lorry/waraferi trucks, be entitled to Rs. 6,538 only. (8) In respect of issue No. 8, the claimant shall, on account of transportation of empty gunny bags and chemicals between Agartala and Dharmanagar, be entitled to Rs. 320 only. (9) In respect of issue No. 9, the claimant shall, on account of costs of bamboo mats and sutli supplied by him to Melaghat depot, be entitled to Rs. 288 only. (10) In respect of issue No. 10, the claimant shall be entitled to refund of his security deposit of Rs. 320 only. (9) In respect of issue No. 9, the claimant shall, on account of costs of bamboo mats and sutli supplied by him to Melaghat depot, be entitled to Rs. 288 only. (10) In respect of issue No. 10, the claimant shall be entitled to refund of his security deposit of Rs. 30,000 only, which is admitted. (11) In respect of issue No. 11, the opposite party shall not, on account of alleged demurrage charges accounting due to Dharmanagar Railway Station for the period from 18.9.75 to 31.10.78, be entitled to any amount. (12) In respect of issue No. 12, the opposite party shall not, on account of allegeddemurrage charges accruing due at Churaibari Railway Station for the period from 18.9.75 to 31.10.78, be entitled to any amount. (13) In respect of issue No. 13, the opposite party shall not, on account of any alleged loss by alleged contamination of food grains with petrol and diesel during transit by lorries of the claimant, be entitled to any amount. (14) In respect of issue No. 14, the claimant shall, on account of interest upto the date of this Award, be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 2,97,995 only. (15) In respect of issue No. 15, while the opposite party shall not be entitled to any amount from the claimant, the claimant shall, however, in view of my findings above, be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 12,91,313 (Rupees twelve lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred and thirteen) only. In the result, my Award is that the claimant shall be entitled to a total amount of Rs. 12,91,313 (Rs twelve lakhs ninety one thousand three hundred and thirteen) only, which amount shall carry interest at 6% per annum until realisation. My Award is further, that besides the above, the claimant shall also be entitled to a return or refund of his security deposit of Rs. 30,000 (Rs thirty thousand) only. 11. The aforesaid Award of the Arbitrator would show that in respect of issue No. 1, the Arbitrator gave an Award that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 4,28,870 on account of his residuary dues for transportation charges. 30,000 (Rs thirty thousand) only. 11. The aforesaid Award of the Arbitrator would show that in respect of issue No. 1, the Arbitrator gave an Award that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 4,28,870 on account of his residuary dues for transportation charges. On a reading of paragraphs 1 to 16 of the statement of claims filed by the appellant before the Arbitrator as well as paragraphs 6 to 16 of the written objection of the respondent Corporation filed before the Arbitrator, it appears that although the appellant had quoted in his tender the rate of transportation at 79.99% above the schedule of rates, after negotiation the appellant had agreed to a rate of 73.49% above the schedule of rates and accordingly the appellant was appointed transport contractor by letter dated 13.1.76 of the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation at the said agreed rate of 73.49% above the schedule of rates. Subsequently however on account of rise in prices of HSD oil, lubricants, motor parts including tyres, etc, the appellant requested to sanction a 10% increase over the aforesaid agreed rate but the respondent Corporation allowed only a 6% increase over the agreed rate and the bills of the appellant were entertained at the said enhanced rate of 6% above the earlier agreed rate of transportation. In these circumstances, the appellant has claimed the residuary dues for transportation charges at the enhanced rate of 10% above the agreed rate amounting 4o Rs. 6,43,302.08 for the transportation work done by him before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator awarded Rs. 4,28,870 against the said claim. It is thus clear that what had been agreed upon between the parties to the contract was an escMation of 6% in addition to 73.49% above the schedule of rates with effect from 1.12.75 and not 10% claimed by the appellant and the bills of the appellant at the said enhanced rate of 6% had been entertained by the respondent Corporation. The claim of the appellant beyond the said enhanced rate of 6% was 'contrary to what had been agreed between the parties and was beyond the contract arid such a claim of the appellant could not be entertained by the Arbitrator under the arbitration agreement. In our considered opinion therefore the award of Rs. The claim of the appellant beyond the said enhanced rate of 6% was 'contrary to what had been agreed between the parties and was beyond the contract arid such a claim of the appellant could not be entertained by the Arbitrator under the arbitration agreement. In our considered opinion therefore the award of Rs. 4,28,870 on issue No. 1 by the Arbitrator was beyond his jurisdiction and was rightly set aside by the learned Assistant District Judge. Further, since the respondent Corporation in their written objection before the Arbitrator had in fact objected to any rate higher than the enhance rate of 6%, there was no acquiescence on the party of the respondent Corporation to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the dispute relating to enhancement of transportation charges at 10%. 12. On issue No. 2, the Arbitrator held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 2,17,750 only towards his residuary dues in respect of actual distance. On a perusal of paragraph 17 of the statement of claim of the appellant before the Arbitrator, it appears that the case of the appellant be$pre the Arbitrator was that the District Manager of the respondent Corporation at Agartala made payment of running bills of the appellant for transport charges for distances lower than the actual distances of carriage. According to the appellant, the fraction of a kilometer as per the terms of the contract was to be rounded off too the nearest 0.5 kilometer, but the District Manager in making payments ignored such fractions altogether and paid for lower distance. The further case of the appellant was that on a number of occasions food grains were despatched from Dharmanagar/Churaibari Rail heads to Arundhutinagar godowns at Agartala and this destination was mentioned in the invoices, Road Movement Permits and weighment sheets concerned, but the trucks on arrival at Arundhutinagar were diverted to other godowns scattered in and around Agartala town as and when there was no space in Arundhutinagar godowns and this involved transportation for additional distances. In some cases, bills for such additional distances were paid but in most of the cases the claims for additional distances had not been paid. For the actual distances of carriage for which payment was not made, the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 2,72,209.20. In some cases, bills for such additional distances were paid but in most of the cases the claims for additional distances had not been paid. For the actual distances of carriage for which payment was not made, the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 2,72,209.20. In paragraph 17 of the written objection of the respondent Corporation before the Arbitrator, the respondent Corporation simply denied the claim of Rs. 2,72,209.20 stating that the payment for distances was made on the basis of certificate issued by the appropriate authority and that nothing was due in this aspect. The Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,17,750 in favour of the appellant in respect of the aforesaid claim of the appellant on account of his residuary dues in respect of actual distances of carriage. It is thus clear that the respondent Corporation had not raised a plea before the Arbitrator that there was a dispute between the appellant and the respondent Corporation relating to the actual distances of carriage which could be determined under clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the tender by the Chief Engineer, PWD, or any officer nominated by him or by the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation andnot by Hie Arbitrator. On the other hand, Exts 72 and 74 before the Arbitrator indicate that there was no such dispute between the appellant and the respondent Corporation relating to actual distances of carriage and that distances from point to point had been agreed to between the appellant and the respondent Corporation including the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation. Yet the learned Assistant District Judge in the impugned judgment and the order has set aside the said Award of the Arbitrator of Rs. Yet the learned Assistant District Judge in the impugned judgment and the order has set aside the said Award of the Arbitrator of Rs. 2,17,750 on issue No. 2 on the ground that decision relating to distance could be given under the contract only by the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation and not by the Arbitrator under clause XIX of the contract in our considered opinion, therefore, there was no dispute or difference between the appellant and the respondent Corporation relating to actual distance of carriage before the Arbitrator and the dispute or difference between the parties on the aforesaid claim was the amount that was actually due and payable by the respondent Corporation to the appellant for the actual distances for which transportation work was done by the appellant and the Arbitrator had jurisdiction under clause XIX of the contract to decide the said dispute arising out of or touching or concerning the agreement between the parties. 13. On issue No. 3, the Arbitrator in his Award has held that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 1,70,235 on account of his residuary dues for transportation charges from and to Melaghar, Kumarghat and Pecharthal. The case of the appellant before the Arbitrator on this claim in paragraph 18 of his statement of claim was that places like Melaghar, Kumarghat and Pecharthal did not fall within the places of operation of the appellant under the contract in question and the appellant therefore had no obligation under the contract to transport food grains etc from and to, or perform handling works or supply labour, etc at these places. But the District Manager of the respondent Corporation compelled the appellant to perform the aforesaid transport and handling works at these places and the appellant raised objection to perform the work at these places at the directed rates arid demanded payment for transportation work to and from these places at the rates which the State Govt of Tripura in the Food Department paid for such works and submitted bills accordingly but the District Manager of the respondent Corporation declined to make payment of transportation charge at the State Govt rates and handling charges at the rates paid for departmental work and paid the appellants only at the tender rates which were much lower. Hence the appellant was entitled to get payment of his outstanding and residuary claim of Rs. 2,12,793.67 on this account. Hence the appellant was entitled to get payment of his outstanding and residuary claim of Rs. 2,12,793.67 on this account. The respondent Corporation resisted the aforesaid claim before the Arbitrator in paragraph 18 of their written objection stating that the appellant was bound to perform all services and execute all works as per the terms and conditions and the rates of the contract and that the appellant was not entitled to make any claim whatsoever for compensation or revision of rates. Thus, the respondent Corporation has not acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration to decide the aforesaid claim of the appellant for Rs. 2,12,793.67 and has instead taken a stand that under the contract between the parties the aforesaid claim cannot be entertained by the Arbitrator. Clauses XV (a), (b) and (c) and clause XX on which reliance, has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties are quoted herein below : “XV. Remuneration : (a) The contractors shall be paid the remunerations in respect of the services described in para XX and performed by them at the contract rates. (b) If the contractors are required to perform any service in addition to those specifically provided for in the contract and the annexed schedule the contractors' remuneration for the same will be paid at the rates as negotiated and fixed by mutual agreement. Failing such an agreement the matter shall be referred to Arbitrator under clause XIX. (c) The question whether a particular service is or is not covered by any of the services specifically described and provided for in the contract, or is or is not auxiliary or incidental to any of such services shall be decided by the Regional Manager whose decision shall be final and binding on the contractors. XX. Services to be performed by the contractors : (1) For transportation of food grains/sugar, gunny, jute twined and allied materials: 1. From Dharmanagar/Churaibari Rly goods yard/FG Sdg to any FCI godown in and around Tripura and vice versa (including any other godowns those may be taken in future in and around Tripura). 2. From one FCI godown to another FCI godown in and around Tripura Area (including any other godowns those may be taken in future in and around Tripura area). 3. 2. From one FCI godown to another FCI godown in and around Tripura Area (including any other godowns those may be taken in future in and around Tripura area). 3. For Handling work at Churaibari Rly Station and local FCI godowns of Churaibari/Ganganagar Area.” Thus, under clause XV(a) of the contract quoted above, the appellant was entitled to be paid remunerations in respect of services described in clause XX at the contract rates. Clause XX covers services to be performed by the appellant for transportation from harmanagar/Churaibari Railway goods yard/FG Sdg to any godown of the Corporation in and around Tripura and vice versa including any other godown to be taken in future in and around Tripura and from one godown to another godown of the Corporation in an around Tripura including any other godown which may be taken in future in and around Tripura. Thus, the services described in clause XX of the contract covered almost all transportation works in and around Tripura area and under clause XV(a), for such transportation in and around Tripura area, the appellant was entitled to only the contract rates. As discussed above, the contract rate was 73.49% above the schedule of rates and an enhancement of 6% as agreed subsequently. Thus, the appellant was entitled to be paid at the aforesaid contract rate of 73.49% above the schedule of rates and the enhanced rate of 6% for transportation to places like Melaghar, Kumarghat and Pecharthal which were in and around Tripura area and the claim of the appellant at the State Govt's rate was beyond the contract and was therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. In our considered opinion, therefore, the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding a sum of Rs. 1,70,235 on account of his residuary dues for transportation charges from and to Melaghar, Kumarghat and Pechar&al on issue No. 3 on the basis of the State Govt's rates. The Arbitrator would have had the jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid claim under clause XV(b) of the contract quoted above if the transportation to and from the aforesaid areas would not rave been in and around Tripura and outside and services described in clause XX of the contract. The Arbitrator would have had the jurisdiction to decide the aforesaid claim under clause XV(b) of the contract quoted above if the transportation to and from the aforesaid areas would not rave been in and around Tripura and outside and services described in clause XX of the contract. But the Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the services relating to transportation to and from the aforesaid areas were covered under clause XX of the contract and could be paid only at the contract rates as provided in clause XV(a) of the coatract. Moreover, clause XV(c) of the contract quoted above would show that the question whether a particular service was or was not covered by any of the services described and provided for in the contract was to be decided by the Regional Manager whose decision was to be final and binding on the appellant. As discussed above, arbitration clauses XIX itself excluded from the purview of the arbitration any matter the decision on which was expressly provided for in the contract. In the instant case, since the dispute as to whether or not transportation to and from the aforesaid areas was a service specifically described and provided for in the contract was to be decided under the contract finally by the Regional Manager, the said dispute was beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement contained in clause XIX and there was a patent lack of jurisdiction in the Arbitrator to decide the aforesaid dispute. 14. On issue No. 4, the Arbitrator has held in the impugned Award that the appellant was entitled to Rs. 1,09,855 on account of handling and labour charges. In paragraph 19 of the statement of claim before the Arbitrator, the appellant has stated that he had to supply casual labourers to the Churaibari Depot of the respondent Corporation besides engaging labourers for handling including unloading and loading of wagons and loading of trucks at Churaibari Rail head and that he was obliged to pay such labourers under the terms of the contract atleast the minimum wages prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act fixed by the Tripura Govt, but he was paid by the District Manager of the respondent Corporation labour charges @ 73.49% above the schedule of rates and accordingly the appellant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,56,938.08 towards his residuary dues on this account. 1,56,938.08 towards his residuary dues on this account. The respondent Corporation in paragraph 19 of their written objection before the Arbitrator have reiterated the terms of the contract and has denied the liability to pay the said residuary labour charges, etc at higher rate. The relevant paragraph of clause VII of the contract relating to payment of wages to labourers is extracted herein below : “(1) Payment of wages to workers : The contractors shall pay not less than minimum wages to the workers engaged by them on either time rates basis or piece rate basis on the work, minimum wages both for the time rate and for the piece rate work shall mean the rate (s) notified by appropriate authority at the time of inviting tenders for the work. Where such wages have not been so notified by the appropriate authority, the wages prescribed by the Regional Manager as minimum wage shall be made applicable. The contractor shall maintain necessary records and registers like Wage Book and wage slip, etc, Register of unpaid wages arid Register of Fines and Deductions giving the particulars as indicated in Appendix VI. The minimum wages prescribed for the time being for piece rate and time rate workers are as indicated below: 1. Time rates worker (male) Rs. Per day As prescribed do (female) Rs. Per day by Labour Deptt 2. Piece rated workers Rs. Per day Govt of Tripura.” It would be clear from the aforesaid terms of the contract between the parties that the appellant was required to pay not less than the minimum wages to the workers prescribed from time to time by the Labour Department, Govt of Tripura. By necessary implication, therefore, under the aforesaid terms of the contract the appellant was entitled to payment from the respondent Corporation the minimum wages as prescribed by the Labour Department, Govt of Tripura from time to time and not at 73.49% above the schedule of rates. This is because payment of minimum wages to the workers engaged by the appellant was a concomitant of the aforesaid express term of the contract for payment of minimum wage to the workers engaged by the appellant and we are not in a position to hold that the Award of the Arbitrator on issue No. 4 on account of payment of minimum wages to the workers was beyond the contract and outside his jurisdiction. In Tarapore & Co vs. State of MP (supra), the Supreme Court found in paragraph 26 of the judgment as reported in (1994) 3 SCC 521 , that the terms of the contract between the parties in the said case was silent about the payment of minimum wage and that the contractor in the said case had paid the minimum wages on account of its statutory obligation under the Minimum Wages Act. But in paragraph 27 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court found that the terms of the contract required the contractor not to pay less than fair wages and accordingly held that if afterwards the rates of fair wages were raised and that the tendered sum did not take into account such raise in the rates of fair wages, the State had by necessary implication agreed to reimburse the increased payment of fair wages to the workers by the contractor and that the Award of the Arbitrator on the claim of such increased payment on account of rise in the rates of fair wages could not be held to be beyond the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Tarapore & Co vs. State of MP supports our conclusion that the since the terms of the contract between the appellant and the respondent Corporation expressly provided for payment of minimum wages, the respondent Corporation had by necessary implication agreed to reimburse the payment of minimum wages paid by the appellant to the workers and the claim of the appellant towards such payment of minimum wages in excess of 73.49% above the schedule of rates was within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator and the Award of the Arbitrator on issue No. 4 on this account cannot be held to be beyond his jurisdiction. 15. On issue No. 5, the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 48.462 to the appellant on account of refund of admissible transit shortage. 15. On issue No. 5, the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 48.462 to the appellant on account of refund of admissible transit shortage. In paragraph 20 of the statement of claim of the appellant before the Arbitrator, the appellant's case was that in all cases he delivered the identical number of bags and quantity of food grains received by him from the respondent Corporation and tKere was actually no shortage in transit by road at the time of giving delivery and that as per practice and circular an usual shrinkage to the extent of 0.25% during transit by road was allowable and yet the District Manager of the respondent Corporation deducted a sum of Rs. 48,461.97 from the running bills of the appellant and did not refund the aforesaid amount despke claim being made by the appellant. In paragraph 20 of their written objection before the Arbitrator, the respondent Corporation has denied the said liability of Rs. 48,461.97 and has stated that as per the terms and conditions of the contract the appellant was responsible for any shortage in quantity, etc during transit and that the respondent Corporation had sustained loss for such shortage and District Manager deducted that aforesaid amount for such loss incurred during transportation of stock by the appellant. In our considered opinion, the dispute as to whether or not the respondent Corporation suffered loss on account of shortage due to transportation of stpe£ during transit was a dispute on facts and that the said dispute was within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator being one arising out of the touching the agreement between the parties and error, if any, in Award of the Arbitrator on the aforesaid claim of shortage was not an error of law apparent on the face of the Award and there was therefore no valid ground for setting aside the Award of the Arbitrator on the said issue No. 5. 16. On issue No. 6, the Arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs.l 1,000 on account of charges for detention of trucks. 16. On issue No. 6, the Arbitrator awarded an amount of Rs.l 1,000 on account of charges for detention of trucks. The claim of the appellant in the statement of claim before the Arbitrator as stated in paragraph 21 thereof was that due to acts of omission and/or negligence on the part of the officers and/or servants or agents of the respondent Corporation attached to its different depots there was delay in unloading of food grains, etc from the trucks of the appellant and as a result the trucks were detained at the depots sometimes over night and until about the noon of the following day of their arrival at the Depots and that for such detention of trucks the appellant was entitled to Rs. 16,000. The aforesaid claim towards detention of trucks has been resisted by the respondent Corporation in paragraph 21 of its written objection before the Arbitrator. Clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the tender which formed part of the contract between the parties is quoted herein below : “No compensation shall be admissible to the contractors in respect of the detention of trucks/any other vehicles at godowns, railway station/railway siding or any other loading unloading point (s) or any other place(s) unless such detention be of extra ordinary kind and the decision of the Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, on all such claims shall be final both as regards the admissibility and the amount, if any of the compensation.” It is clear from the aforesaid clause 6 of the terms and conditions of the tender that no compensation was admissible to the appellant in respect of the detention of trucks/any other vehicles at godo wns/Rail way station/Railway siding or any other loading/unloading point unless such detention was of extra ordinary kind and that the decision of the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation on all such claims was final both as regards admissibility and the amount of compensation. The claim towards detention of trucks of the appellant, therefore, was excluded from the purview of the Arbitrator inasmuch as the contract itself expressly provided for a decision on the matter by the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation and such decision on matters provided for in the contract was expressly excluded from arbitration as per the arbitration clause XIX of the contract. The Award of the Arbitrator on issue No. 6 on account of charges for detention of trucks was thus, beyond the contract and was in excess of the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. 17. On issue No. 7, the Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs. 6,538 on account of supply of lorry/waraferi trucks. The case of the appellant before the Arbitrator in paragraph 22 of the statement of claim was that under the terms of the contract the appellant supplied lorries for waraferi duty and the appellant was entitled to get payment for the same as per the terms of the contract and the a appgllant submitted bills for Rs. 6,536 along with his final bill but the respondent Corporation did not pay the said bills. In paragraph 22 of their written objection, the respondent Corporation has merely denied the said claim of Rs 6,536 and has put the appellant to the strict proof thereof. On a reading of paragraph 23 of Part II of the contract relating to other services, we find that the appellant was required by the said clause 23 to supply one or more trucks for waraferi with two b wamers for full day or half day for transporting food grains, etc from one godown to another or for miscellaneous transport operations and the charges for supply of trucks was deemed to include the charges for the supply of two wamers and no separate remuneration was to be paid thereon. Thus, supply of trucks for waraferi with two wamers and payment of charges thereof were part of the contract between the appellant and the respondent Corporation and the Award c of the Arbitrator on the claim of the appellant for such waraferi charges was within the jurisdiction, and cannot be said to be beyond the contract. 18. On issue Nos 8 and 9, the Arbitrator has awarded Rs 320/- towards transportation of empty gunny bags and chemicals between Agartala and Dharmanagar, and Rs 2887- on account of cost of bamboo mats and sutli supplied by the appellant to Melaghar Depot of the respondent Corporation. In paragraph 23 of the statement of claim before the Arbitrator, the appellant has stated that despite the aforesaid claims made by the appellant in his bills, the District Manager of the respondent Corporation did not make payment towards the aforesaid claims. In paragraph 23 of the statement of claim before the Arbitrator, the appellant has stated that despite the aforesaid claims made by the appellant in his bills, the District Manager of the respondent Corporation did not make payment towards the aforesaid claims. In paragraph 23 of their written objection, the respondent Corporation have denied the aforesaid claim of the appellant and put the appellant to strict proof thereof. In our opinion, the disputes relating to the aforesaid claims of Rs. 3207- and Rs. 288 before the Arbitrator were essentially dispute relating to proof and the decisions of the Arbitrator on the aforesaid two claims were fully within his jurisdiction as the disputes arose out of the agreement or touching the agreement between the parties. 19. On issue No. 10, the Arbitrator held that the appellant was entitled to refund of his security deposit of Rs. 30,0007-. The appellant in paragraph 24 of his statement of claim before the Arbitrator stated that the appellant was entitled to refund of the said security deposit of Rs. 30,000 which the District Manager of the respondent Corporation deducted from the running bills of the appellant. The respondent Corporation iff paragraph 24 of their written objection before the Arbitrator has only stated that the claim for refund of security deposit was pre-mature subject to finalisation of all claims and counter claims of both the parties. Since the claims and counter claims of both the parties were to be finally decided by the Arbitrator, in our considered opinion, the Award of Rs 30,000 towards refund of security deposit on issue No. 10 cannot be held to be beyond the contract, and was therefore within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. 20. On issue Nos. 11,12 and 13, the Arbitrator has not awarded any amount in favour of the respondent Corporation and no prayer has been made by the respondent Corporation before this Court for remitting the matter to the Arbitrator for a fresh award on issue Nos. 11,12 and 13. Hence, the Award of the Arbitrator on the said issues need not be dealt with by us. 21. On issue No. 4, the Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs.2,97,995 only in favour of the appellant on account of interest upto the date of Award. 11,12 and 13. Hence, the Award of the Arbitrator on the said issues need not be dealt with by us. 21. On issue No. 4, the Arbitrator has awarded an amount of Rs.2,97,995 only in favour of the appellant on account of interest upto the date of Award. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Govt of India vs. GC Roy, AIR 1992 SC 732 , the Supreme Court after considering its earlier decisions on the point has held that where the agreement between the parties does not prohibit grant of interest and where a party claims interest and that dispute (along with the claim for principal amount or independently) is referred to the Arbitrator, he shall have the power to award interest pendente lite. Hence, the Arbitrator had the jurisdiction to award interest pendente lite unless the agreement between the appellant and the respondent Corporation prohibited such grant of interest. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation, has not referred to any provision of the agreement to show that it prohibited grant of such pendente lite interest by the Arbitrator. He only submitted that the Arbitrator should not have awarded a lump sum interest of Rs.2,97,995 but should have awarded interest at a particular rate for the period of reference. The reference was made to the Arbitrator by the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation on 17.4.80 and the Award was given by the Arbitrator on 24.6.83. The aforesaid lump sum interest of Rs. 2,97,995 awarded by the Arbitrator upto the date of Award on a total amount of Rs. 9,93,318 (excluding the security deposit of Rs. 30,0007-) works out @ 10% per annum approximately. From the aforesaid principal sum of Rs. 9,93,318, the amounts of Rs. 4,28,870, Rs. 1,70,235 and Rs 11,000 awarded under issue Nos. 1,3 and 6 have to be excluded as we have found the Award of the Arbitrator on the aforesaid three issues to be beyond his jurisdiction. After exclusion of the aforesaid amounts awarded under issue Nos 1, 3 and 6, the principal amount works out to Rs. 3,83,213. The appellant would thus be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the aforesaid principal amount of Rs. 3,83,213 from 17.4.80 till 24.6.83. After exclusion of the aforesaid amounts awarded under issue Nos 1, 3 and 6, the principal amount works out to Rs. 3,83,213. The appellant would thus be entitled to interest @ 10% per annum on the aforesaid principal amount of Rs. 3,83,213 from 17.4.80 till 24.6.83. No interest can be awarded by the Arbitrator on the security deposit of Rs.30,000 because under clause XI (d) of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent Corporation it has been stipulated that the respondent Corporation shall not be liable for payment of interest on the security 4eposit for the time it is held by the respondent Corporation. 22. Issue No. 15 relates to total amount awarded by the Arbitrator in favour of the appellant. As has been held above, the appellant will be entitled to the aforesaid principal sum of Rs. 3,83,213 with interest @ 10% per annum from 17.4.80 to 24.6.83. In addition, the appellant will also be entitled to the refund of security deposit of Rs. 30,000 as awarded by the Arbitrator. For the period from the date of Award, the Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to award interest as the litigation was no longer before him. Hence the award of interest @ 6% per annum on the amount awarded till realisation is'beyond his jurisdiction. But in Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd, AIR 1989 SC 973 , the Supreme Court justified the award of interest by the Court from the date of award to the date of decree holding that: “... So far as interest for the period from the date of the award (19.7.85) till the date of the decree is concerned, the question was not specifically considered in Abhaduta Jena's case (supra) but special leave had been refused against the order in so far as it allowed interest for this period. We think interest should be allowed for this period, on the principle that this Court can, once proceedings under sections 15 to 17 are initiated, grant interest pending the litigation before it, ie, from the date of the Award to the date of the decree. It may be doubtful whether this can be done in cases arising before the Interest Act, 1978 in view of the restricted scope of section 29 of the Arbitration Act. It may be doubtful whether this can be done in cases arising before the Interest Act, 1978 in view of the restricted scope of section 29 of the Arbitration Act. But there can be no doubt about the Court's power to grant this interest in cases governed by the Interest Act, 1978 as section 3(1) (a) which was applied by Abhaduta Jena to arbitrators will equally apply to enable this Court to do this in these proceedings.” 23. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed, the impugned judgment and order dated 8.6.93 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala in Title Suit (Arb) No. 83/83 are set aside and the Award of the Arbitrator as modified by this judgment is decreed. It is further directed that on the principal sum of Rs. 3,83,213 as adjudged in the modified Award the appellant would be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the Award till the date of this decree and from the date of this decree till realisation. 24. However, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their respective costs.