JUDGMENT

K. RAMASWAMY, J. - These appeals arise from the orders of the High Court of Orissa dated 15-2-1982 made in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 65 of 1982 etc. The respondent-contractor was entrusted with the work "construction of sump and pump chamber etc. for pipes W/S to Village Kentile" as per agreement dated 21-9-1967, "Village Kentile water supply scheme construction of 20,000 gallons capacity R. R. masonry underground reservoir" as per agreement dated 19-7-1976 and "Piped water supply to Kentile - Construction of 0.135 M. G. D. Treatment Plant" as per agreement dated 6-10-1977 for the years 1967-68, 1975-76 and 1976-77 respectively. In respect of the latter two contracts, after executing some work, he abandoned the contract and accepted the measurements and payment of the fourth running bill without any objection on 19-7-1976 and 6-10-1977 respectively. With regard to the first, he accepted the measurement and payment of the bill without raising any objection.

2. On 15-9-1980, the respondent wrote a letter to the Chief Engineer, Public Health, Orissa alleging that disputes had arisen out of and relating to the aforesaid agreement for the works done and called upon the Chief Engineer to nominate an arbitrator who in turn informed the respondent that since there was no arbitration clause in the agreement, the question of reference to an arbitrator did not arise. The respondent, thereon filed applications under Sections 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar for appointment of an arbitrator. By order dated 7-9-1981 and 14-9-1981, the Subordinate Judge allowed the application under Section 8 and directed the parties to file the agreement in the Court and also to nominate panel of names for appointment as an arbitrator. On revision and appeals having been filed, the High Court, by its order dated 15-2-1982, dismissed the revision and miscellaneous appeals. Different arbitrator came to the appointed by the Court in each case. Thus, these appeals for special leave.

3. Two contentions have been canvassed before us impugning the legality of the order of the Subordinate Judge as confirmed by the High Court to appoint the arbitrator. The first contention is that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. Therefore, the question of reference does not arise. It is further contended that works having been executed as early as in 1967 and 1976, the dispute is barred by limitation. Another contention raised is that the respondent having received the amounts without any protest, cannot avail of the arbitration. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decision of the Public Health Engineer is final in respect of any claim, right, matter of thing whatsoever in any way arising out of, or relating to, the contract or conditions or otherwise concerning the works or execution or failure to execute the same or any orders or conditions during the progress of the work or after the completion or sooner determination thereof by necessary implication envisages, within its ambit, an arbitration of a dispute or difference between the appellants and the respondent. The respondent having issued a notice calling upon the Chief Engineer to appoint or nominate an arbitrator and the Chief Engineer having failed to do so, he is entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the court under Section 8 and 20 of the Act. The Subordinate Court and the High Court, therefore, were right in their conclusion that the clause in question provides for an arbitration of the dispute. The claim was made on 15-9-1980 and the applications are immediately filed thereafter. Therefore, the claims are not barred by limitation.

4. The diverse contentions give rise to the question whether the claims are barred by limitation and whether the clause in the contract gives rise to an arbitration. Section 37(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short "the Act") provides that all the provisions of the In