JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah dated 30th April, 2010 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 73 of 2008. We fail to understand why this matter has been nomenclatured as Misc. Appeal, as it was a proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the said Act). We, therefore, desire that the learned Additional District Judge will examine this aspect, at a later stage of the proceedings whether this type of nomenclature is permissible under the law or not. 2. The Railway authorities, who are the respondents before us, being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dated 16th January, 2008, filed an application under section 34 of the said Act on various grounds. However, substance of such grievance is that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has exceeded jurisdiction while making the award on the claim of reimbursement of revised rate of wages, claimed to have been paid by the appellant. 3. The short fact leading to initiating the arbitration proceedings and also that of before the learned trial Judge and the appeal before us, is as follows. 4. By an agreement in writing, the appellant before us, agreed to render services as contractor of loading and unloading parcel consignments of various customers at two Railway stations viz. Serampore and Seoraphuli. At the time of entering into the agreement, the rate of wages to be paid by the appellant was prescribed; however, according to the appellant this rate was changeable and variable from time to time, as per clause 14 of the agreement. 5. It was the contention that strictly in terms of clause 14 of the agreement, the enhanced rate of wages was paid to the workers and/or labourers engaged by the appellant from the pool of a co-operative society, called VIP Co-operative Society, which is the monopoly supplier of work force to the appellant. 6. It was also the claim that the Railway authorities from time to time accepted revisional rate of wages and reimbursement was made on account of payment made at revised rate. The dispute arose after 1991 when the Railway authorities refused to reimburse the difference of payment of wages paid to the workers. 7. 6. It was also the claim that the Railway authorities from time to time accepted revisional rate of wages and reimbursement was made on account of payment made at revised rate. The dispute arose after 1991 when the Railway authorities refused to reimburse the difference of payment of wages paid to the workers. 7. The matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, manned by three persons out of whom two are the nominees of both the parties and remaining is the Chairman. 8. It appears from the statement of claim that the claim as narrated above, was repeated and reiterated. The Railway authorities have also filed counter-statement of fact. In the counter-statement, it was stated that there has been no provision in the agreement for reimbursement of difference of wages on account of revised rate of wages. It was also stated that no revised payment was actually made by the appellant to the workers. 9. On these two basic issues, the learned Arbitral Tribunal heard the parties inviting documents to be submitted and documents were submitted admittedly. Hearing was given and there was no complaint that there has been any breach of principle of natural justice. 10. The learned Arbitral Tribunal after having considered all the documents produced before it, held that the appellant had been able to substantiate the claim, not wholly but substantially. The learned Arbitral Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,84,890/- on account of reimbursement of difference of payment of wages at the revised rate to the labourers for two stations. As far as the claim of interest, the same was disallowed. The learned Arbitral Tribunal directed to refund the security amount; however, refused to pass any award on account of loss of injury, alleged to have been suffered by the appellant. Thus, the learned Arbitral Tribunal awarded an aggregated sum of Rs. 13,65,515/- together with interest @ 18% per annum in the event the aforesaid awarded amount was not paid within sixty days from the date of publication of the award. 11. The appellant before us did not challenge the award as regards rejection of the claim; however, the respondents did before the learned trial Judge, basically on the two grounds, as mentioned above. 12. 11. The appellant before us did not challenge the award as regards rejection of the claim; however, the respondents did before the learned trial Judge, basically on the two grounds, as mentioned above. 12. Upon reading the judgment and order of the learned trial Judge, we notice that the learned trial Judge did not decide the issue as regards applicability of clause 14 of the agreement or for that matter, the question of jurisdiction in the premise that there has been no agreement for payment of escalation of price so to say. The learned trial Judge really focused upon hearing the argument, whether payment has actually been made or not. 13. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that it was not the issue before the learned Arbitral Tribunal whether payment has been made or not. In the pleading, it has not been denied and disputed whether payment has been made or not. The learned trial Judge has decided an issue, which was absolutely non-issue. He contends that when the learned Arbitral Tribunal passed an award, the Court is not supposed to probe into the mind of the learned Arbitral Tribunal as it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 S.C. 890 . He has drawn our attention to paragraphs 29 and 32 of the report in this respect. 14. That apart, he has drawn our attention to various documents contained in the paper book at pages 216 to 250, which are certificates of reimbursement of fair wages. He contends that the said certificates were issued by the Railway officials and those were produced before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Unfortunately, the learned trial Judge did not look into this aspect of the matter and held otherwise and remanded the matter for fresh trial as regards the issue of payment. 15. Mr. Mintu Kumar Goswami, appearing for the Railway authorities contends that the plea of non-payment was specifically raised in the counter-statement and the plea of applicability of clause 14 of the agreement as regards escalation of price was also taken. 15. Mr. Mintu Kumar Goswami, appearing for the Railway authorities contends that the plea of non-payment was specifically raised in the counter-statement and the plea of applicability of clause 14 of the agreement as regards escalation of price was also taken. According to him, when the issue regarding nonpayment was raised and the learned Arbitral Tribunal has not decided the same, it is incumbent for the Court to decide as to whether it is incorrect to say that this plea was not taken and he has drawn our attention in this context to the relevant portion of the counter-statement. 16. Therefore, he contends that there is no harm to decide the matter afresh. He further submits that the award is not supportable otherwise, as the learned Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an award on account of reimbursement of revised rate of wages as the clause 14 of the agreement, if read and considered carefully, does not permit to pass such an award. 17. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and we have gone through carefully the award and the judgment of the learned trial Judge. The issue which has cropped up before us is whether the learned trial Judge is justified in remitting the award to the Arbitral Tribunal on the issue of payment on the given facts and materials placed before him. 18. While addressing the sole and cardinal issue, we are to examine whether the issue of payment and non-payment was raised before the learned Arbitral Tribunal or not. We find in the counter-statement of fact, which is always to be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner, that the plea of non-payment was taken and on this issue, the learned Arbitral Tribunal has decided as follows: “In the 9th meeting which has held on 14.9.07, the claimant submitted the copy of the bills as asked for. After considering above facts this tribunal is of the opinion that claimant should be given payment at enhanced labour rates circulated by Chief Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour from time to time.” 19. After considering above facts this tribunal is of the opinion that claimant should be given payment at enhanced labour rates circulated by Chief Labour Commissioner, Ministry of Labour from time to time.” 19. Therefore, it is axiomatic that the learned Arbitral Tribunal was satisfied with the sufficiency of evidence and it is settled position of law that it is not for the Court to examine the sufficiency of evidence before the Arbitral Tribunal as this is simply impermissible in exercise of jurisdiction of judicial review in the private law field. It is needless to mention that as per provision of section 34 of the said Act, the power of the Court is akin to the power of judicial review over a private law field. Therefore, the norms and parameters for examining this aspect has to be followed as it is followed in the case of judicial review over public law field which we say illustratively breach of principle of natural justice, perverse finding, findings based on no material and irrationality on the face of it. 20. Keeping in view the aforesaid proposition of law, we look into the award. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Sudarshan Trading Co. -vs- The Government of Kerala and Anr. (AIR 1989, S.C. 890), in paragraph 29 has stated that the Court will not probe into the mind of the arbitrator on what basis the award was passed. However, when we read paragraph 32 of the said report, it appears to us that the observations made in paragraph 29 is not the straightjacket formula and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. The said observations has to be read subject to the contents of paragraph 32. 21. We are of the considered view that if there is no material to support the conclusion of the arbitrator, obviously, the Court has to probe into the mind of the arbitrator and the only conclusion would be total non-application of mind. Therefore, the Court can probe into the mind of the Arbitrator when it is a case of absolutely non-speaking award and not in every case. 22. Here, we find that materials were placed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and these documents viz. the certificates for reimbursement of fair wages, issued by the Railway officials were produced. There was no witness action to challenge the genuineness of the documents. 22. Here, we find that materials were placed before the learned Arbitral Tribunal and these documents viz. the certificates for reimbursement of fair wages, issued by the Railway officials were produced. There was no witness action to challenge the genuineness of the documents. Therefore, the learned Arbitral Tribunal, though not expressly but impliedly, accepted rightly those documents to be material to support the award. We are, therefore, unable to accept the findings of the learned trial Judge, who has gone to the extent that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has passed an award without any evidence. We simply say that the learned trial Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction in exercise of power of judicial review in the private law field. 23. Mr. Mintu Kumar Goswami, learned Advocate then contends that the question of jurisdiction can also be raised in the appeal court. We agree with him. The learned trial Judge has not decided the issue, rather accepted the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal that the agreement envisages escalation of wages and also allowability of the revised rate of wages. No cross objection has been filed on that issue nor any cross appeal has been preferred. Nonetheless, we have taken note of this submission. Therefore, we set out the clause 14 of the agreement, which is as follows: “Clause 14: The contractor shall pay not less than fair wages to the labourers engaged by him on the work, the fair wage being the wage including the allowances, notified at the time of inviting tenders for the work and where not modified, the wages paid for similar work in the neighbourhood. The labour wages and allowances shall also not be less than those prescribed by any provisional law etc. or by a Tribunal award under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 etc. If applicable contract labour engaged in Railways in the locality in which the labour works. The contractor shall keep a record of much payment etc. and submit a certificate every month to the Railway Administration of his having done so. or by a Tribunal award under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 etc. If applicable contract labour engaged in Railways in the locality in which the labour works. The contractor shall keep a record of much payment etc. and submit a certificate every month to the Railway Administration of his having done so. If the Railway Administration at any time consider the mode/manner adopted by contractor, of paying his workman not in accordance with the provision made under contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970 and Rules framed thereunder, they shall have the power of requiring change of system within one week from the date of a notice in writing to the effect in consequence with the provisions of the aforesaid Act & Rules under Chapter VI of the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Central Rules 1971 and as modified from time to time in this behalf and in case the contract fails to make payment of wages within the specified period or in the manner prescribed or makes short payment, the Railway Administration shall make payment of wages full or the unpaid balance due as the case may be to the Labourers employed by the contractor and recover the amount to paid from the contractor, either by deduction from any amount payable to the contractor under any contractor and debit payable by the contractor. A notice showing the rates of wages to be paid to workers will be published by the contractors and exhibited prominently near the place of work and should be made easily accessible to all workers.” 24. This clause specifically, if read carefully, provides for revision of rate of wages and that is why till 1991, such revision was made as per the Central Government notifications issued by the Labour Department and both the parties had accepted the revision of rate of wages till 1991. Thereafter, it was refused. After all these, one cannot argue that the learned Arbitral Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass the award, as has been done. 25. In view of the discussion as above, we are of the view that the learned trial Judge was not justified in remitting the matter before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 26. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal stands allowed and judgment and order of the learned trial Judge is set aside. There will be no order as to costs.