JUDGMENT Nirmal Singh, J. - This petition is directed against the order of Additional District Judge, Ropar who vide order dated 2.12.1991 accepted the appeal and ordered that the application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellant be referred to the Chief Engineer (O&M), Ropar Thermal Plant, Ropar, for arbitration. 2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that respondent filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act (for short the Act). The petitioners invited tenders for supplying the labour. The respondent submitted its tender. The tender being the lowest one was accepted by the petitioners. The regular contract was executed between the parties. In the said agreement there was an arbitration clause that in case of any dispute or difference between the parties regarding the payment or execution of the contract, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator i.e. Chief Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, Ropar Thermal Plant or any other officer appointed on his behalf. A dispute arose between the parties regarding the payment of the labour charges i.e. concerning the contract. The said matter was liable to be adjudicated by the Arbitrator as per the arbitration clause in the agreement. The petitioner inspite of the notice by the respondent did not refer the matter to the Arbitrator, therefore, an application under Section 20 of the Act was filed before the civil Court seeking a direction that the arbitration agreement be filed in the Court and the matter be referred as per the arbitration clause. 3. The petitioners contested the application and admitted the agreement. However, it was pleaded that the dispute was not covered under the arbitration clause as referred in the agreement, therefore, no case is made out for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The parties led their evidence before the trial Court. The trial Court after recording the evidence and perusing the documents placed on record, dismissed the application. 4. Dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, the appeal was preferred by the respondent. The appeal came up before the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar which was accepted and the dispute was referred to the Chief Engineer O&M, Ropar Thermal Plant, Ropar. The petitioners have preferred the revision against the impugned order. 5. 4. Dissatisfied with the order of the trial Court, the appeal was preferred by the respondent. The appeal came up before the learned Additional District Judge, Ropar which was accepted and the dispute was referred to the Chief Engineer O&M, Ropar Thermal Plant, Ropar. The petitioners have preferred the revision against the impugned order. 5. Shri D.S. Brar, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the dispute between the parties was not covered under the arbitration clause. He submitted that every dispute is not referred to the Arbitrator. The only dispute can be referred which is covered by the agreement. He submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that no dispute has arisen between the parties which is referable to the Arbitrator under the agreement and also held that the petition is not maintainable. He submitted that the learned Additional District Judge was wrongly interpreted clause 3.14 of the agreement that every dispute is to be referred to the Arbitrator. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record. 7. It is the admitted case of the parties that the petitioners were appointed as a contractor for supplying the labour for the maintainance of RTP and an agreement was executed. In the agreement, there was a clause 3.14 which reads as under :- "That in case of any dispute pending or arising between the parties in respect of the meanings or effect of any clause/clauses of this contract or the rights and or liabilities of the parties to this contract, it shall be referred to the arbitration of the C.E./O&M, RTP, Ropar, or any other officer appointed by him on his behalf and the award given by such arbitrator shall be conclusive and binding on the parties. The arbitrator may from time to time, with the consent of the parties enlarge the same for making and publishing the award." The respondents claim was that the petitioners had been requisitioning the services of the labour of the respondent in case of emergency/break down and also on holidays of the labour and beyond the normal eight hours duty. The arbitrator may from time to time, with the consent of the parties enlarge the same for making and publishing the award." The respondents claim was that the petitioners had been requisitioning the services of the labour of the respondent in case of emergency/break down and also on holidays of the labour and beyond the normal eight hours duty. The amount payable on this account was liable to be assessed as over time because this clause was made in the agreement for the reason that the Labour Law do not permit the labour to work beyond their normal duty hours or on holidays except on the condition that they are paid over time. Similarly, a weekly rest was to be provided to the labourer as per the Labour Laws and they are to be paid over time on weekly rest days. The petitioners had been making the payment of the over time only with regard to the labour supplied beyond duty hours during the normal working days but no payment was made for the labour provided on holidays and weekly rest. 8. In the agreement, there is another clause I-C, which reads as under :- "Rate for over time : In the event of emergency/breakdown, if PSEB requires the services of any person/persons of the contractor for a period over and above the normal 8 hours of duty period on a particular day or on holidays then the contractor under this contract shall arrange and provide the services so required and shall charge over time for all such person/persons at the rate shown against such category of personal. Period for payment of over time will be considered on pro-rata basis as under : A fraction of half hour upto half hour will be treated as half hour and more than half hour will be treated as half hour and more than half hour but less than one hour will be treated as one full hour." A perusal of clause 3.14 of the agreement clearly shows that in case any dispute pending or arising between the parties in respect of the meanings or effect of any clause of this contract or the rights and or liabilities of the parties to this contract, the matter will be referred to the Arbitrator. In this case, the dispute has been raised by the respondent with regard to the interpretations of clause I-C. Once the interpretation of any clause of the agreement is to be made then the matter is to be referred to the Arbitrator. In the instant case, Clause I-C is to be interpreted. This interpretation as per the agreement clause, is to be done by the Arbitrator. Therefore, the matter is to be referred to the Arbitrator. The learned Additional District Judge has rightly set aside the order of the trial Court. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed. Revision dismissed.