JUDGMENT : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. 1. Admit. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. These applications have been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) praying that an arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the claim of the applicant in terms of tender document dated 22-2-2012. 3. According to the applicant, he was issued two work orders, dated 25-2-2012 and 2-8-2012 by the non-applicant. It is the case of the applicant that in terms of said work orders, he had carried out the said work and bills in that regard were also raised. These bills were endorsed by the Mine Manager and other Officers of the non-applicant. On the said bills not being paid, the applicant issued notice seeking appointment of arbitrator in terms of Clause 46 of the tender document. As there was no response to aforesaid notice, the present applications have been filed. 4. Shri S.V. Bhutada, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per Clause 46 of the tender document, any dispute or difference in respect of the agreement/work order was to be settled by way of arbitration. It was submitted that expressed words ‘contract’ and ‘work’ had been defined in the tender document, which included extra or additional work, which was to be done for completing the contract. It was further submitted that the work in question was carried out as per the directions of the competent authority and therefore on differences arising in said matter, the same were required to be resolved by appointing an arbitrator. According to the learned Counsel, the bills submitted by the applicant were also endorsed by the Officers of the non-applicant Company who were competent to do so. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arasmeta Captive Power Company Private Limited and another vs. Lafarge India Private Limited, AIR 2014 SC 525 . 5. Shri S.S. Ghate, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, the work alleged to have been carried out by the applicant was beyond the scope of work orders. According to him, it was specifically mentioned in the work orders that the work was to be executed strictly as per the specifications. 5. Shri S.S. Ghate, the learned Counsel for the non-applicant opposed the aforesaid submissions. According to him, the work alleged to have been carried out by the applicant was beyond the scope of work orders. According to him, it was specifically mentioned in the work orders that the work was to be executed strictly as per the specifications. The bills in question had been endorsed by the personnel, who were not competent to direct carrying out any additional work. According to the learned Counsel, it was the case of the applicant in the present applications that the work had been done as per the contract and that the applicant had acted on the basis of assurances, which were in fact never given to him. It was, therefore, submitted that there was no arbitral dispute which could be referred for arbitration. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KSS KSSIIPL Consortium vs. Gail (India) Limited, (2015) 4 SCC 210 . 6. I have heard the respective Counsel for the parties and I have perused the documents placed on record. There is no dispute that there is a clause for arbitration at Sr. No. 46 of the tender document. As per the said clause, any dispute or difference with regard to the agreement/work order had to be settled by arbitration. It is further stipulated that the arbitrator is competent to decide whether the dispute or difference referred to him was covered by the arbitration clause. While it is the case of the applicant that the work in question has been carried out as per the work orders which also stipulate certain modifications, alterations or additional items to be permissible, it is the case of the non-applicant that the work in question does not fall within the work orders and therefore, the arbitration clause is not attracted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arasmeta Captive Power Company Private Limited (supra) has held in clear terms that while dealing with an application under section 11(6) of the Act, the Court is not expected to adjudicate on the aspect as to whether a dispute relates to excepted matters under the agreement in question or not. 7. In the present case, it is the very exercise which is sought to be got adjudicated by the non-applicant. 7. In the present case, it is the very exercise which is sought to be got adjudicated by the non-applicant. In KSS KSSIIPL Consortium (supra), it has been observed that the existence of a claim and denial thereof giving rise to a dispute is required to be determined on the basis of what the parties had agreed upon as embodied in the terms of the contract. In the present case, the applicant by relying upon the work orders is justifying the work carried out, while the non-applicant by relying upon on the same work orders seeks to deny the entitlement of the applicant. In the light of the law laid down in Arasmeta Captive Power (supra) this exercise is not permissible while considering an application under section 11(6) of the Act. 8. Thus considering the work orders dated 2-8-2012 and 25-2-2012 and arbitration Clause 46 in the tender document, it is clear that a case for appointment of arbitrator has been made out. 9. In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed: The applications are allowed. The dispute between the parties are referred for arbitration. In view of provisions of section 12(5) of the Act and with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, Shri A.R. Patil, Advocate is appointed as sole Arbitrator as per Clause 46 of the tender document. The parties shall act accordingly. No costs.