Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1112 (RAJ)

Paste and Neavy Sindicate v. State of Rajasthan

2014-05-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 17.2.2001 passed by the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer in Civil Misc. Case Nos. 2/2000 and 3/2000 whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was rejected. 2. Facts in brief are that an arbitration award was passed on 3.11.1999 by the Arbitrator appointed by the parties in relation to a dispute inter-se between the appellant herein and the State Government for the settlement of claims filed by the respective parties in relation to the contract of lining executed by the appellant in the Indira Gandhi Canal R.D. Nos. 135 to 140 (Appeal No. 836/2001) and R.D. Nos. 80 to 85 (Appeal No. 548/2001). The appellant pleaded before the Arbitrator that as the place of work allocated to him fell within a distance of 16 Kms. from the Indo Pak Border, the appellant was entitled to 10% extra special allowance with interest over and above the terms of the contract towards the labour rate and transportation in terms of the B.S.R. The respondent State Government filed a reply stating that the contract between the parties was covered by the G-Schedule wherein there was no provision of additional 10% allowance. The Arbitrator rejected the claim filed by the appellant claiming the extra allowance and the interest thereupon for allegedly working near the border. The appellant preferred an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the learned District Judge, Jaisalmer which too was rejected by the order dated 17.2.2001. Being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim and the appeal and the denial of the monetary relief sought for, the appellant has approached this Court by way of these two appeals. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the department acted arbitrarily because another contractor who worked in the same area was paid 10% extra allowance as prescribed in the B.S.R. He submitted that the department did not disclose to the appellant that the work which was to be carried out by it was in an area falling with 16 Kms. from the Indo Pak Border. Thus, the department is guilty of concealing material facts and should be penalised for the same. from the Indo Pak Border. Thus, the department is guilty of concealing material facts and should be penalised for the same. Thus, he urged that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and the appellant deserves to be granted 10% allowance in addition to the principal and interest thereupon in terms of the B.S.R. 4. Per contra Mr. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the State referred to Section 34 of the Act and submitted that award passed by the Arbitrator can only be interfered with in the cases covered by the eventualities mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 34 of the Act of 1986. He submitted that it was not pleaded by the appellant either in the appeal or in the application filed before the learned District Judge that any of the clauses mentioned in Section 34(2) of the Act apply to his case, and therefore, the appellant cannot be permitted to challenge the award. Thus, he urged that the appeal being meritless should be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the record as well as the impugned orders. The contract which was entered into between the parties specifically refers to the work having been allocated to the appellant in between R.D. 80 to 85 and R.D. 135 to 140 which denote the various lengths of the Indira Gandhi Canal. As per the contract, the payment was to be governed by the G-Schedule. The appellant could very well have claimed at the time of execution of the contract that the terms and conditions should be governed by the B.S.R. and not the G-Schedule. The appellant signed the contract with all consciousness and awareness and accepted to abide by the terms thereof. As the payment of the work was agreed to be made in terms of the G-Schedule which forms the part of the contract, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant to now turn back and contend that the payment should be made to him in terms of the B.S.R. 6. The appellant was also very much aware about the geographical location of the work site and cannot be permitted to take the plea that the fact regarding the area of operation being within a distance of 16 Kms. from the Indo Pak Border was concealed by the Department. The appellant was also very much aware about the geographical location of the work site and cannot be permitted to take the plea that the fact regarding the area of operation being within a distance of 16 Kms. from the Indo Pak Border was concealed by the Department. The contract clearly defines the areas of work and the appellant accepted the same with open eyes. The plea of concealment of fact which has been advanced by Mr. S.D. Purohit, learned Counsel for the appellant is primafacie not tenable as the contract specifically mentions the area where the work was to be executed and from the mere reference thereto, the location of the work site with reference to the distance from the border could have been ascertained by the appellant. 7. In the opinion of this Court, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the arbitral award can only be interfered by the Court upon the conditions enumerated in Section 34(2) of the Act being satisfied carries force. Leaned Counsel for the appellant failed to demonstrate before this Court that any of the conditions of the impugned award are in violation/infringement of Section 34(2)(a) of the Act of 1996. Thus the orders impugned cannot be said to be illegal perverse or contrary to the material available on record so as to call for any interference in this appeal.The appeals thus being devoid of any merit are rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******