AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE Court : This is an application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 30. 4. 97 passed by the sole arbitrator. ( 2 ) THE basic points as taken by the petitioner is that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction and misconducted in making award. The award is a speaking award. ( 3 ) I have gone through the award and I find that the arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,79,160. 08p. along with interest and cost in favour of the respondents/award holder out of the total claim of Rs. 39,31,313. 46p. ( 4 ) THREE parts of the claim as raised by the respondents/award holder was allowed as follows :- (A)work was delayed due to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the award holder is entitled to claim a sum of Rs. 70,808. 08p. (B)on account of idle labour, the respondents/award holder was allowed a sum of Rs. 1,05,003/ -. (C)on account of the increasement of the contractual period an award was granted in favour of the respondents/award holder for a sum of Rs. 4,73,552/ -. (D)on account of putting guards etc. for the period of May and June, 1990 for a sum of Rs. 13,800/ -. (E)on account of compensation of delay to sums were awarded i. e. Rs. 76,000/- and Rs. 2,04,000/ -. In this way, the amount was awarded. ( 5 ) IT is well-known principle that in hearing the application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, Court cannot sit over it as an appeal Court to enquire as to the question of the reasonableness. Therefore, the only question the Court can look as to whether the award is bad from the face of it or not. Therefore, the substantial question herein is that whether arbitrator is really exceeded the jurisdiction or misconducted himself in awarding the sum as agitated by the petitioner and as to whether the same is falling under the parameter of award is bad from the face of it or not. ( 6 ) THE crux of the case of Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, erroneous appreciation of facts goes to the root of misconduct. Secondly, inference with regard to issue No. 1 is erroneous. ( 6 ) THE crux of the case of Mr. Pradip Ghosh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is two-fold. Firstly, erroneous appreciation of facts goes to the root of misconduct. Secondly, inference with regard to issue No. 1 is erroneous. Further the question of idle labour or supply of materials along with the question of inference with regard to Issue No. 1. ( 7 ) IF I go through the basic submissions, it will be categorically understood all questions are related to appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case which is not the domain of the Court in hearing the application under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. ( 8 ) FACTUAL appreciation was made by the arbitrator i. e. chosen forum in between the parties themselves. All points were open before him and were discussed. Now when one party has lost the battle and invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under section 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 to achieve the goal in the nature of appeal, the same cannot be encouragable by the Court. The Court is only concerned about the domain of the Arbitrator. If the same is correct and if all the questions were agitated before him and decided serially as appeared herein, there is no scope of the petitioner to re-agitate the same before the Court of law. ( 9 ) MR. Ghosh has submitted that erroneous appreciation of facts goes to misconduct. But I do believe that erroneous appreciation of facts by the Court in this nature of application will lead to a negative end of the positive prayer of the failed party. The word 'misconduct' has a very wide connotation. But the same has to be understood by the Court in the proper perspective. This is not a case where Court will go into such question of misconduct for the sake of the availability of the question of law. ( 10 ) FACTUALLY, the petitioner has made out a case by saying that although there was delay in completion of work by more than 27 months, the respondent did not make any claim for compensation from the respondent herein. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for delay, if any, on the part of the respondent cannot be entertained. Firstly, logically such type of submission is not acceptable. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for delay, if any, on the part of the respondent cannot be entertained. Firstly, logically such type of submission is not acceptable. Secondly, this point was agitated before the arbitrator and was discussed in the speaking award itself. Therefore, there is no need of interference in respect of such submission as made by the petitioner. Thirdly, the petitioner, although made various submissions with regard to idle labour etc. , but the same is also not encouragable since the arbitrator has considered at length in respect of such clauses of the agreement and came to a finding which he thought is proper. Moreover, factually, the clause of the extension of the period as well as idle labour and supply of materials etc. have been properly understood by the arbitrator and given answer issue wise as well as claim wise. Thereafter, Court cannot interfere with the same unnecessarily. If the clauses of the contract is read out, it will be available that the clauses are applicable in respect of the payment by the respondent to the petitioner in case of failure, if any. But what would be the claim of the petitioner in respect of disputes in between the parties as a contracting party is to be decided by the arbitrator upon visualising the contract and upon giving the evidential value of the documents in this respect, which is the domain of the arbitrator. ( 11 ) MR. Ghosh has cited a judgment reported in AIR 1954 Cal 369 paragraph 17 therein (Show and Co. v. B. Shamal Das and Co.) in its paragraph 17 and contended that waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. If the person is not known about the right how can it be said to waive it. ( 12 ) POSSIBLY learned counsel has taken the point with an apprehension that since the point has agitated before the arbitrator may not be allowed to take up now. ( 13 ) HE also cited well-know decision of Associated Engineering Company reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 in its various paragraph specially paragraph 26 to 28 therein. He contended that arbitrator cannot act arbitrary or irrationally. His sole function is to support in terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given under the contract. He has acted without jurisdiction. He contended that arbitrator cannot act arbitrary or irrationally. His sole function is to support in terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have given under the contract. He has acted without jurisdiction. If he has remain within the parameter of the contract and has constitute the provisions of the contract his award cannot be interfered with unless he has given reasons of the award disclosing an error apparent on the face of it. A dispute as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not a dispute within the award. But one which has to be decided outside the award. An umpire or arbitrator cannot widen his jurisdiction by deciding a question not referred to him by the parties or by deciding a question than in accordance with the contract. He cannot say that he does not hear for the contract. He is bound by it. It must bear his jurisdiction. If he exceeded by jurisdiction by so doing, his award would be liable to be set aside. Evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award would be admissible to decide whether the arbitrator travelled out side the bound of the contract and, thus, exceeded its jurisdiction. ( 14 ) IN order to see what the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is, it is open to the Court to see what disputes were submitted to him. If that is not clear from the award, it is open to the Court to have recourse to out side sources. The Court can look at the affidavits of pleadings of the parties and agreement itself. ( 15 ) HE has also cited AIR 1997 SC 980 (New India Civil Erectors (P) Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation) : 1997 (1) Arbitration Law Reports 242 in which the famous case of Sudarshan Trading Company reported in AIR 1989 SC 890 was followed. ( 16 ) I have gone through paragraph 8 and found that the same is only related to factual position of the case therein. Paragraph 9 of the same where the ratio of the decision of AIR 1989 SC 890 was quoted it appears if the party sets limit to action by the arbitrator, then the arbitrator had to follow the limits set for him and the Court can find that he exceeded his jurisdiction on prove of such excess. Paragraph 9 of the same where the ratio of the decision of AIR 1989 SC 890 was quoted it appears if the party sets limit to action by the arbitrator, then the arbitrator had to follow the limits set for him and the Court can find that he exceeded his jurisdiction on prove of such excess. ( 17 ) UPON citing this judgments as well as showing various parts of the awards also affidavits and clauses of the agreement, Mr. Ghosh in effect submitted that the arbitrator has travelled beyond the parameters of the contract. ( 18 ) UPON hearing such submission, I have called upon Mr. Jayanta Mitra and Mrs. Dola Bose to meet the points of the petitioners. They, in turn, contended that the point of delay in performing the contract was taken before the arbitrator by settling issues therein. Therefore, there is no scope of reopening the same issue before the Court in setting aside the award. Arbitrator has given his reasons and findings in this respect which is open for the Court to visualise the same as to whether all the points were agitated by the parties and considered by the arbitrator or not. ( 19 ) SECONDLY, parties have submitted to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. An arbitrator has gone through all the documents than come to an appropriate conclusion, there is no case of the petitioner that the arbitrator was bias or the award is out-come of non-application of mind. ( 20 ) THEY have relied upon a judgment reported in AIR 1997 SC 1324 (P. V. Radha Krishna v. Spong Iron (I) Limited) in its various paragraphs, specially the paragraph 14 the rein. Various important decisions including the case of M/s. Sudarshan Trading Company as reported in AIR 1989 SC 890 was also referred in this case. In that case, Supreme Court held that it is forbidden by the Supreme Court earlier that the Court cannot substitute its own view in place of the Arbitrator's view as if it was dealing with an appeal. In the instant case also, the famous decisions of M/s. Hindusthan Construction Co. In that case, Supreme Court held that it is forbidden by the Supreme Court earlier that the Court cannot substitute its own view in place of the Arbitrator's view as if it was dealing with an appeal. In the instant case also, the famous decisions of M/s. Hindusthan Construction Co. Ltd. reported in 1995 (3) SCC 8 was also considered wherein it was held that it is well-known that the Court while considering the question whether the award should be set aside or not, the Court cannot re-appreciate all the materials on the record for the purpose of recording a finding whether in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the award in question would have been made. ( 21 ) I have gone through the various decisions as well as submissions made by the parties herein, I find that simplest way to the answer to the query is whether the arbitrator had exceeded the jurisdiction or not by considering the delay on the part of the party in performing the contract. ( 22 ) IT is abundantly clear from the award that first issue was whether the work or any part of it got delayed because of any reasons attributable to the respondents i. e. the petitioner herein as alleged by the claimant or otherwise. Therefore, the issue of the delay was settled and the consideration of such issue of delay in performing the contract cannot be said to be the consideration by the arbitrator by exceeding the jurisdiction of it. ( 23 ) IT is also abundantly clear even from the decision of M/s. Associated Engineering Co. as reported in AIR 1992 SC 232 on which the petitioner was very much relied, that if the arbitrator remain inside the parameter of the contract and constitute the provisions of the contract, his award cannot be interfered with unless he has given reasons award disclosing and error apparent from the face of it. Therefore, if the award is non-speaking but within the fore-corners of the contract cannot be interfered and if reasons are given the same will be checked up by the Court as to whether he has exceeded the jurisdiction or not. Can it be said that consideration in respect of the delay in performing the contract is travel of the arbitrator beyond the parameter? Can it be said that consideration in respect of the delay in performing the contract is travel of the arbitrator beyond the parameter? My answer is 'no' specifically when it is well established not only by reason, The respondent cited a judgment reported in AIR 1987 SC 2316 (Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Jagannath Ashok Kumar and Anr) where it is categorically clarified that the reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator in making his award cannot be challenged. The arbitrator is the sole judge of quality as well as quantity of the evidence and it will not before the Court to take up itself the task of being a judge of the evidence before the arbitrator. It may be possible that on the same evidence, the Court might have arrived at a different conclusion than one arrived at by the arbitrator. But that by itself is no ground for setting aside the award of an arbitrator. Therefore, I hold that this application should be liable to be dismissed. No order is passed as to costs. As a consequential effect to dismissal of the application of setting aside the award, there will be decreed in terms of the award. Decree will carry interest @ 12% p. a. but at a simple rate from the date of the decree till the date of realisation. The decree will be drawn up expeditiously. The department and all parties are to act on a signed copy minutes of the operative part of the judgment. Application dismissed.