ORDER Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Heard the parties and perused lower Court records. Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro. Steel City, an Unit of M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) allotted work for modification/retro- fitting of N.G.E.F. panels containing M type Breaker to be replaced by M.E. type in various sub-stations/installations of different shop/unit inside the plant to M/s Krishna Electricals, Bokaro (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor). The work order was issued vide Letter No. CC/ETB/Misc./04/2649/ 93-2745 dated 8.6.1993. It was to be completed within six months under the supervision of N.G.E.F. Personnel, without extra cost, as per letter dated 5.7.1994. If due to non-availability or shut down of ACBS at work site (sub-station) or due to any reason on the part of, the Company the work could not be completed within the stipulated period of six months, then the Company was to pay extra amount on the time spent for completion of work beyond the said period @ Rs. 1,64,062.50 paise per month. 2. According to the contractor work was started on 15.12.1993. On 5.7.1994 and 1.8.1994 the contractor requested the Company to extend the time for completion of work for further one year as it could not be completed due to non- availability of ACBS and shut down. A third letter dated 9.10.1995 was also sent for further extension of time for twentyfour months. The Company by letter dated 28.12.1995 (Ext. 19) fore-closed the contract without any financial repercussion on either side. In the said letter it was mentioned that work was started on 20.5.1995, as certified by the Engineer-in-charge and the balance quantity of 45 numbers of panel could not be undertaken due to non-availability of shut clown on account of production target of the Company. 3. The Contractor disputed contents of the said letter and submitted claims of Rs. 83,55,333.57 paise by letter dated 13.11.1996 (Exhibit 26), which was denied by the Company vide its letter dated 3.12.1996 (Exhibit 28). Ultimately, the disputes were referred for adjudication by three Arbitrators, who submitted the Award dated 26.8.1998 (Annexure 4) for a sum of Rs. 36.11.107.65 paise payable to the Contractor. 4. On 12.11.1998, the Company filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 25 of 1998, which was subsequently converted into Misc. 36.11.107.65 paise payable to the Contractor. 4. On 12.11.1998, the Company filed objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 25 of 1998, which was subsequently converted into Misc. (Arbitrar tion) Case No. 35 of 1998. The Contractor filed reply thereto. The Second Subordinate Judge. Bokaro at Chas by impugned judgment dated 30.1.2001 allowed the objections to the Award and set aside the Award dated 26.8.1998. Hence, the Contractor has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. 5. The Arbitrators held that a sum of Rs. 27,89,062.50 paise for 17 months extra time consumed beyond 6 months of completion time @ Rs. 1,64,062.50 paise per month was payable to the Contractor. According to Arbitrators the work was started on 23.2.1994 and was fore-closed on 28.12.1995. A sum of Rs. 79,101.56 paise was held payable to the contractor on account of 10% expected profit over non-executed value of work, the total value of contract being Rs. 7,91,015.68 paise. A sum of Rs. 82,031.24 paise was calculated by the Arbitrators for appropriate notice period of 15 days (r) Rs. 1,64,062.50 paise per month. Security money of Rs. 24.610/-and Rs. 1,93,359.32 paise for the executed works for 11 panels, which was undisputed, were also held to be, payable to the contractor. On the aforesaid total amount of Rs. 31,68,164.63 paise interest for 21 months (from December, 1996 to August, 1998) @ 8% per annum to the tune of Rs. 4,43,543.02 paise was also directed to be paid. In this manner, the total amount of Award came to Rs. 36,11,707.65 paise. 6. The main question for determination was as on which date the contractor started work. According to contractor, the work was started on 15.12.1993, whereas according to Company it was started on 20.5.1995, but the Arbitrators held that it was started on 23.2.1994. As per Clause 5 of the work order the contract period for the work was 6 months from the date of start of the work, as certified by Engineer-in-charge. According to Clause 11 extra amount for the period consumed after the said 6 months was payable. As per Clause 5 of the work order the contract period for the work was 6 months from the date of start of the work, as certified by Engineer-in-charge. According to Clause 11 extra amount for the period consumed after the said 6 months was payable. It provided that the above price was valid upto 6 months from the date of start of the work as stated above and if due to non-availability of shut down or non-availability of ACBS at work site (sub-station) or due to any reason on the part of B.S.L., for which the work could not be completed within the above time period of 6 months then B.S.L. will pay extra amount on the time spent for completion of the work beyond the above 6 months time at the rate of Rs. 1,64,062.50 paise per month. 7. It is true that in written order dated 1.10.1993 (Exhibit 49) to the work, direction was given to start Job in water supply and I.C.F. department. But, in fact, it was (Exhibit R), which was the required certificate of the Engineer-in- charge, wherein it was clearly mentioned that the work was started on 20.5.1995. So it was rightly held by the Subordinate Judge that Exhibit 49 cannot be said to be the certificate as required in terms of Clause 5. Exhibit D also proved that retro-fitting work was done on 20.5.1995 and thereafter upto 8.7.1995, that was the actual work done in terms of the contract. The Subordinate Judge also rightly held that Arbitrators determined an imaginary date of start of work on 23.2.1994. Other papers, namely, Exhibits 68, 69, 72 and 72/A produced by the Contractor also did not support the contractors claim that actual work started on 15.12.1993. Those papers related to pre-installation activities which were only preparatory work, like dismeritaling etc. 8. I find no reason to interfere with the finding recorded by the Subordinate Judge that in terms of Clause 5, as per Exhibit R the certificate given by the En-gineer-in-charge, the work was, actually started by the contractor on 20.5.1995 and neither on 15.12.1993 nor on 23.2,1994. Hence, as per Clause 11 the contractor was entitled to get a sum of Rs. Hence, as per Clause 11 the contractor was entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2,07,810/- for extra time consumed beyond 6 months completion time (date of start 20.5.1995 -date of closure 28.12.1995 = total period 7 months 8 days, less 6 months completion period = 1 month and 8 days only @ Rs. 1,64.062.50 paise per month). In view of the provisions of specified compensation under Clause 11 for payment of extract amount on the time spent for completion of work beyond 6 months, in my view, the Subordinate Judge rightly held that a sum of Rs. 79.101.50 paise being 10% of the value of unexecuted work was not payable. Likewise, there was no occasion for awarding interest. It- was also against the public policy. 9. In the aforesaid manner, the contractor was entitled to a sum of Rs. 2.07,810/-for extra time consumed beyond 6 months completion time, Rs. 1,93,359.32 paise for the executed works for 11 panels, which is undisputed and Rs. 24610/- security money, total Rs. 4,25,779.32. The Subordinate Judge in the impugned judgment was not justified in setting aside the award as a whole. I, therefore, set aside the award in part, as indicated above, and modify the impugned judgment dated 30.1.2001 accordingly. 10. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification in the impugned judgment and award.