BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the claimant (J and S Construction) and the respondent / counter-claimant [national Small Industries Corporation Limited] (NSIC) have filed objections in respect of the impugned award dated 24. 06. 1992 made by the sole arbitrator. The claimant had responded to a notice inviting tender with respect to construction of an Industrial Marketing Development Centre at NSIC Complex, okhla New Delhi. The claimant had submitted its tender on 02. 12. 1988. Thereafter, the prices of steel had risen sharply. On 31. 03. 1988, the claimant sent a letter to the respondent requesting them to consider the question of increase in the prices of steel and thereby to provide for escalation. It may be pointed out that the tender by itself did not provide for escalation as it was a fixed rate contract. A Letter of Intent was issued by the respondent to the claimant on 05. 05. 1989 which was accepted by the claimant on 16. 05. 1989 without any objection. The claimant had also commenced work on the basis of the letter of Intent. A work order was later issued by the respondent on 18. 08. 1989. The same was accepted by the claimant on 15. 09. 1989, but a condition was attached to the said acceptance. The exact words being:- "work order accepted except for clause 1, the escalation will be provided as per cpwd clause 10 (c) (c)". ( 2 ) THE major dispute is with regard to the question as to whether the contract between the parties provided for escalation or not " It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant even before this court that the respondent had agreed to give an overall increase of 12. 5% as was even admitted in cross-examination by the respondent's witness [sh. T. S. Bhagat, general Manager]. According to the learned counsel for the claimant, the said witness had accepted that in a meeting held on 25. 05. 1990, the respondent had agreed to give an increase of 12. 5%. On the basis of this, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Arbitrator has gone wrong by not awarding the escalation of 12. 5% even though the position had been admitted by the respondent. 05. 1990, the respondent had agreed to give an increase of 12. 5%. On the basis of this, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Arbitrator has gone wrong by not awarding the escalation of 12. 5% even though the position had been admitted by the respondent. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned arbitrator in the following manner:- "the claimant through his letter No. US/wd/ho/650/89 dated 15. 9. 89 asked for escalation in building materials and labour. Respondent contested this claim through his letter dated 29. 9. 89. The claimant sent another letter dated 11. 10. 89 staking his claim for incorporation of escalation clause 10 (c) (c) of cpwd Schedule. In the meantime, the claimant kept holding the duplicate copy of the Work Order dated 18. 8. 89. The Respondent did not agree to incorporate clause10 (c) (c ). I hold that no justification has been made out for incorporation of CPWD clause10 (c) (c) and the claimant could have turned down the offer if it was not acceptable to him. Any variation subsequent to the submission of offer and acceptance by respondent firm could only be with mutual consent of the parties and not unilaterally by the claimant. The demand for escalation by the claimant and refusal by respondent resulted in exchange of considerable correspondences between the parties and eventually respondent firm agreed to give 12. 5% overall increase in the cost of contract in the interest of completing the building expeditiously, but the claimant was not satisfied with the increase and insisted that the clause10 (c) (c) of CPWD Schedule be incorporated in the contract and offer by respondent of overall increase by 12. 5% was not acceptable. The claimant made it a condition precedent for starting the construction work which he had already stopped. The claimant was called upon to resume the work by the respondent and it was categorically stated that in case the claimant did not start the work, he will be deemed to have abandoned the work. The claimant failed to resume the work and wanted to remove tools and tackles from the construction site. I accordingly hold that the claimant had abandoned the work. The claimant failed to resume the work and wanted to remove tools and tackles from the construction site. I accordingly hold that the claimant had abandoned the work. " With reference to the aforesaid extract from the award, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that there is no material to support the finding of the learned Arbitrator that the offer made by the respondent of an overall increase by 12. 5% was not acceptable to the claimant. In response to this, the learned counsel for the respondent / counter-claimant has drawn my attention to Annexure " M before the learned Arbitrator which was a document filed by the claimant and is a letter dated 11. 01. 1991 addressed by the claimant to the respondent. The letter itself has reference to a meeting held on 07. 01. 1991 and alongwith the said letter, a copy of the minutes of the meeting of 07. 01. 1991 has been annexed. Reading the minutes of meeting, it is abundantly clear that the offer of an overall increase of 12. 5% had been made by the respondent and it was also indicated that it was not possible for the management to go beyond that. The minutes indicate that the claimant had sought time to consider the proposal and to give its reaction in a few days time. The letter dated 11. 01. 1991, which followed after a few days, contains a categorical refusal in the following words:-"therefore we are sorry we are unable to accept 12. 5% increase. " ( 3 ) IT was also stated in the letter that if the respondent did not accept the CPWD clause 10 (c) (c) escalation, then the claimant be allowed to remove its materials and that they cannot go on with the work. This document clearly establishes the finding recorded by the learned Arbitrator that though the respondent had made the offer of an overall increase of 12. 5%, the same was not acceptable to the claimant. ( 4 ) IN these circumstances, the objections raised by the claimant, which are founded upon what has been stated above, are not substantiated. The same are, therefore, rejected. 5, Coming to the objections raised by the respondent, after having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the finding of the learned arbitrator insofar as claim No. 6 is concerned, cannot be faulted. The same are, therefore, rejected. 5, Coming to the objections raised by the respondent, after having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the finding of the learned arbitrator insofar as claim No. 6 is concerned, cannot be faulted. Accordingly, this objection is also rejected. The award is accepted in toto and is made a rule of the court.