JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh , Judge. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short ‘Act’) has been filed against the award dated 10.12.2009 passed by Arbitrator in Arbitration Agreement No.62/1998-99. 2. The facts in brief are that the work of C/o Mandap to Baroti road from km 0/0 to 7/5 00 was awarded to respondent as per Agreement No.62/1998-99 by Executive Engineer, B& R Division, H.P.P.W.D., Sarkaghat vide award letter dated 30.12.1998 with stipulated period of one year for its completion. The date of commencement of work as per Agreement was dated 14.01.1999 and the actual date of commencement of work was 20.01.1999. The stipulated date of completion of work was 13.01.2000. The estimated cost of work put to tender was ‘9,44,923/-, tendered amount of work was ‘21,37,735/-. 3.The work could not be completed within the stipulated period. The contract was rescinded by petitioners on 23.10.1999. A dispute arose between the parties. The matter was referred to Arbitrator. The Arbitrator-cum-Superintending Engineer, Circle Solan, made the award on 10.12.2009. The Arbitrator against claims No. 1 to 3 has awarded ‘23,623/-,‘ 99,571/- and ‘88,715/- respectively in favour of respondent. The interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum has also been awarded. 4. It has been stated that respondent could not complete the work within the stipulated period, hence contract was rescinded on 23.10.1999. The Arbitrator has erroneously awarded ‘23,623/- on account of security deposit. The petitioner No.2 Executive Engineer had given ample opportunity to respondent by serving notices dated 04.10.1999 and 09.10.1999 to complete the awarded work, but he failed to complete the work and kept it suspended for months together on false grounds. The action taken under Clause 3(a) of the Agreement to forfeit the security amounting to ‘23,623/- is justified, the Arbitrator has erred in allowing refund on security to respondent. 5.The Arbitrator has erred in awarding ‘99,571/- on account of loss incurred due to stacking machinery and idle sitting of labour and loss of materials stacked. The respondent failed to produce any documentary proof regarding men and machinery on site of work in support of his claim. 6.The respondent was not interested to complete his job. In case there was deficiency on already Water Bound Macadam surface, it could have been brought to the notice of petitioners by respondent before mobilizing men and machinery to the site of work. 6.The respondent was not interested to complete his job. In case there was deficiency on already Water Bound Macadam surface, it could have been brought to the notice of petitioners by respondent before mobilizing men and machinery to the site of work. The respondent failed to do so. The Arbitrator has wrongly allowed the claim of loss due to stacking machinery and idle sitting of labour to respondent. 7.The Arbitrator has erred in awarding ‘88,715/- on account of profit payable to respondent. It cannot be said that every work awarded to a Contractor not necessarily fetch him profit unless it is well- planned and efficiently executed by the Contractor. The respondent had executed work amounting to ‘97,104/-. He apprehended lesser margin on profit and suspended the work on false and frivolous grounds. The Executive Engineer had no option but to rescind the contract. The amount awarded to respondent is not justified. 8.The Arbitrator has awarded simple interest at the rate of 7.5% on claims No.2 and 3 which is not reasonable. The claims No.2 and 3 of respondent were disputed and not admitted, therefore, the Arbitrator erred in awarding the interest at the rate of 7.5% on claims No.2 and 3. 9.The award suffers from legal infirmity. The award is against statute and public policy of India. It has been stated that award is liable to be set aside. The Clauses 2,3 and 10 are not arbitrable, but the Arbitrator has taken a contrary view by giving findings on these Clauses. 10. Heard and perused the record. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that respondent intentionally failed to execute the work as per Agreement. The petitioners had no option but to rescind the contract on 23.10.1999 and forfeit security under Clause 3(a) of the Agreement. The respondent has miserably failed to prove loss due to stacking of machinery and idle sitting of labour. There is no evidence of men and machinery on site of work. The Arbitrator has wrongly awarded assumed profit to respondent. The claims 2, 3 were not admitted by petitioners, therefore, Arbitrator has erred in awarding interest. The Clauses 2, 3 and 10 of the Agreement are not arbitrable. The award is against the public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned award. The Clauses 2, 3 and 10 of the Agreement are not arbitrable. The award is against the public policy of India and is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned award. He has submitted that this Court is not sitting in appeal against the award. The reasonableness of the reasons given by the Arbitrator in awarding claims No.1,2 and 3 in favour of respondent is beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Act. The award is as per public policy and law. 11.The claim No.1 is of refund of security amounting to ‘23,623/-. The claim No.2 of ‘49,85,000/-is for amount payable on account of loss incurred due to stacking of machinery, idle sitting of labour and loss of materials stacked. The respondent under claim No.3 had claimed profit at the rate of 15% on the awarded amount of ‘21,35,735/-. Interest at the rate of 24% was claimed under claim No.4. The Arbitrator has awarded ‘23,623/-,‘ 99,571/-,‘ 88,715/- respectively under claims No.1,2,3 respectively and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the award amount. 12. The petitioners had filed defence statement along with letter dated 22.12.2004 of petitioner No.2 before the Arbitrator to the statement of claim of respondent. It has been pleaded that the Contractor was very slow and the progress of the work was also very slow, delay was on the part of the Contractor. The claimant started work with slow pace and tried to stop the work on lame excuses. The delay in the execution of the work was on the part of the Contractor which warranted action under the contract. The material for wearing approximately 135.65 cubic metres was stacked at site but after that Contractor started making excuses for site hindrances. It was only at few portions where soling was to be corrected. The Contractor was asked to carry on with the work with assurance that the correction of soling if required at site shall be done by the department labour. The security was forfeited as the work was rescinded vide letter dated 23.10.1999 under Clause-3 of the agreement. The claims No.1,2, 3 were denied. 13.In M/s Construction India Versus Secretary, Works Department, Government of Orissa and others (1998) 2 SCC 89 , it has been held:- “12. The security was forfeited as the work was rescinded vide letter dated 23.10.1999 under Clause-3 of the agreement. The claims No.1,2, 3 were denied. 13.In M/s Construction India Versus Secretary, Works Department, Government of Orissa and others (1998) 2 SCC 89 , it has been held:- “12. The jurisdiction which is conferred on an arbitrator is on account of the consent of the parties to the arbitration agreement. Before the arbitrator, the objection as to jurisdiction of the arbitrator was withdrawn by the respondents. It shows acquiescence on the part of the respondents in the continued jurisdiction of the arbitrator to decide the dispute. The minutes recorded show that after raising the objection, the respondents have withdrawn the same. This would indicate a conscious acquiescence on the part of the respondents in the continued jurisdiction of the arbitrator. In the case of N.Chellappan v. Secy. Kerala SEB (1975) 1 SCC 289 this Court on similar grounds held that the State Electricity Board was precluded from challenging the jurisdiction of the umpire. A passage from Russell on Arbitration, 17th Edn. at p. 215 was relied upon. It is to the following effect: “If the parties to the reference either agree beforehand to the method of appointment, or afterwards acquiesce in the appointment made, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, they will be precluded from objecting such appointment as invalidating subsequent proceedings. Attending and taking part in the proceedings with full knowledge of the relevant fact will amount to such acquiescence.” It has also relied upon a decision of Privy Council in the case of Murtaza Hossein v. Bibi Bechunnissa (1876) 3 IA 209. 13. The same passage have been quoted by this Court in a later judgment in the case of Prasun Roy v. Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (1987) 4 SCC 217 where this Court said that long participation and acquiescence in the arbitration proceedings preclude a party from contending that the proceedings were without jurisdiction. Therefore, on this ground also the appellant is entitled to succeed.” The petitioners did not take objection of arbitrability of any claim in the statement of defence before the Arbitrator. They participated in the arbitration. The long participation by the petitioners before the Arbitrator is nothing but acquiescence and, therefore, they are precluded from contending that proceedings before the Arbitrator were without jurisdiction. They participated in the arbitration. The long participation by the petitioners before the Arbitrator is nothing but acquiescence and, therefore, they are precluded from contending that proceedings before the Arbitrator were without jurisdiction. The objection of the petitioners that Arbitrator has erred in entertaining and allowing claims No.1,2 and 3 for want of arbitrability of the claims is not available to the petitioners and the same is rejected. 14.The petitioners in their statement of defence have taken the plea that respondent started the execution of the work with slow pace. He even stacked some material. It emerges from the statement of defence that according to petitioners it was only at a few portions where soling done already was to be corrected. The respondent was assured that the correction of soling if required at site would be done by department labour. This indicates that even petitioners have not denied that entire length of site was not free from hindrance. The Arbitrator has relied letters dated 04.03.1999, 03.05.1999 and 20.05.1999 of respondent that before wearing the surface of the road required soling. The petitioners have not denied the receipt of aforesaid letters. 15. The actual date of commencement of the work as per agreement was 20.01 .1999 and the stipulated date of completion of work was 13.01.2000 as per the agreement. The respondent only on 04.10.1999 was asked to complete the work within the stipulated period. There is no explanation why before 04.10.1999 the respondent was not asked that his progress of work was slow and the work was to be completed before 13.01.2000. The Arbitrator has recorded finding that after rescission of contract 383.50 cubic metres soling was laid by department to repair the road as per letter dated 18.03.2009 of petitioner No.2. This indicates that the site was not hindrance free for execution. The work could not be executed within stipulated period due to default of the department and not of the respondent. The rescission of contract and forfeiture of security of ‘23,623/- vide letter dated 23.10.1999 is not justified. The findings recorded by Arbitrator regarding rescission of contract and refund of security under claim No.1 are based upon evidence and cannot be faulted. 16. The respondent under claim No.2 has been awarded ‘ 99,571/- on account of loss suffered due to stacking of machinery, idle sitting of labour and loss of material stacked. The findings recorded by Arbitrator regarding rescission of contract and refund of security under claim No.1 are based upon evidence and cannot be faulted. 16. The respondent under claim No.2 has been awarded ‘ 99,571/- on account of loss suffered due to stacking of machinery, idle sitting of labour and loss of material stacked. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied Krishna Bhagya Jala Nigam Ltd. versus G.Harishchandra Reddy and another (2007) 2 SCC 720 for awarding loss on account of idle charges of machinery etc. The respondent claimed that his machinery and labour deployed at site remained idle for 200 days and claimed ‘ 49,85,000/- for the idle labour and machinery. The Arbitrator in the impugned award has observed that on 28.01.2009 petitioner No.2 vide letter dated 23.01.2009 submitted revised statement of labour and machinery, after making corrections in the revised statement submitted by respondent. He has also observed that both the parties agreed the revised statement submitted by respondent. This observation of the Arbitrator in the impugned award has not been challenged at the time of hearing. It has already been held under claim No.1 that rescission of contract vide letter dated 23.10.1999 was not justified. 17.On the basis of record, the Arbitrator has held that admittedly the respondent had stacked stone, aggregate for wearing as payment has been made on this account by petitioner in the first and final bill. The respondent had, thus, brought labour and machinery at site of work, but could not execute the work for want of hindrance free site. The Arbitrator has taken into consideration that for completing the work in 365 days the cost of labour and machinery amounting to ‘ 6,05,723/- was required as per rates prevalent at the relevant time which comes to ‘3,31,903/- for 200 days for deploying labour and machinery. In other words, the respondent’s labour and machinery worth ‘3,31,903/- would have been required for doing work for 200 days. The work was rescinded on 23.10.1999. The Arbitrator has observed that after waiting for about a month the respondent could have put to an end the contract to save him from further losses. The respondent was other wise required to mitigate the losses. The work was rescinded on 23.10.1999. The Arbitrator has observed that after waiting for about a month the respondent could have put to an end the contract to save him from further losses. The respondent was other wise required to mitigate the losses. The Arbitrator has observed that loss to the extent 70% out of ‘3,31,903/- could have been mitigated and respondent is entitled to remaining 30% of ‘ 3,31,903/- which comes to ‘99,571/-, which amount has been awarded by Arbitrator to the respondent. The reasons given by the Arbitrator in awarding ‘99,571/- to respondent under claim No.2 are just, equitable and based upon material on record and, therefore, no fault can be found with the amount awarded to respondent under claim No.2, who has otherwise accepted the award. He has not assailed the award. 18.The Arbitrator has allowed ‘88,715/- to respondent under claim No.3. The work was awarded to the respondent for an amount of ‘21,35,735/-. The respondent could execute work amounting to ‘97,104/- as per final bill. He could not execute the balance work amounting to ‘20,40,431/- (‘21,37,535-97,104/-). The Arbitrator has taken into consideration 10% Contractor’s profit and 5% overhead charges and has observed that anticipated profit against balance of bid price of ‘ 20,40,431/- comes to ‘ 1,77,429/-. The respondent had written last letter on 20.05.1999 before rescission of contract by petitioner No.2 on 23.10.1999. The respondent could have mitigated his losses. He un-necessarily waited indefinitely. The Arbitrator has come to the conclusion that out of ‘1,77,429/- the respondent would have mitigated losses to the extent of 50% and, therefore, the amount of anticipated profit comes to ‘88,715/-. The award of ‘ 88,715/- under claim No.3 is not excessive. The respondent has accepted the award. 19. The Arbitrator has also allowed interest at the rate of 7.5% on the awarded amount up to the date of award against 24% claimed by the respondent. In Mcdermott International Inc. Versus Burn Standard Co.Ltd. and others (2006) 11 SCC 181 , it has been held that power of the Arbitrator to award interest for pre-award period, interest pendente lite and interest post-award period is not in dispute. The Supreme Court has allowed interest at the rate of 71/2 %. In Mcdermott International Inc. Versus Burn Standard Co.Ltd. and others (2006) 11 SCC 181 , it has been held that power of the Arbitrator to award interest for pre-award period, interest pendente lite and interest post-award period is not in dispute. The Supreme Court has allowed interest at the rate of 71/2 %. The Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others Versus S.L.Arora and Company (2010) 3 SCC 690 has held that Section 31(7) merely authorizes the Arbitral Tribunal to award interest in accordance with contract and in the absence of any prohibition in the contract and in the absence of specific provision relating to interest in the contract, to award interest at such rates as it deems fit from the date on which the cause of action arose till the date of payment. The interest awarded by the Arbitrator is reasonable and not excessive. The scope under Section 34 of the Act is limited. It is not a case of no evidence nor it can be said that any claim awarded by the Arbitrator to the respondent is against public policy. Thus, seen from any angle, the impugned award is just and equitable. There is no merit in the objections. 20.In view of above discussion, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.