( 1 ) THIS Arbitration Application is filed under S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, (for short "the New Act") read with Para 2 of the Scheme for Appointment of Arbitrators framed by the Chief Justice under sub-sec. (10) of S. 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Ordinance, 1996 seeking appointment of an independent Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that arose between the parties in connection with the work of"improvements to the circulating area, dismantling Block No. 6, cycle stand, portico and shifting of MCO"under Agreement No. SK/89 dated 15-2-1989.

( 2 ) THE material facts leading to filing of this application are the following:the applicant a partnership firm - is a Railway Contractor. It was entrusted with the aforesaid work by the South Central Railway (hereinafter referred to as "the Railways" for short) under the said agreement. The approximate value of the work that was to be done under the agreement was Rs. 1,96,316-25ps.

( 3 ) THE agreement contains an Arbitration Clause in clause 64 of the General Conditions of the Contract, which forms part of the agreement. The relevant portions of the said Clause are as under :-"64 (1) (i ). In the event of any dispute or difference between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and liabilities of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account, or as to the withholding by the Railway of any certificate to which the contractor may claim to be entitled to, or if the Railway fails to make decision within a reasonable time, then and in any such case, save the excepted matters referred to in Clause 63 of these conditions, the contractor, after 90 days but within 180 days of his presenting his final claim on disputed matter, shall demand in writing that the dispute or difference be referred to arbitration. (1) (ii) and (iii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (a) Matters in question, dispute or difference to be arbitrated upon shall be referred to for decision to - (3) (a) (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (a) (ii) Two Arbitrators who shall be Gazetted Railway Officers of equal status to be appointed in the manner laid in Clause 64 (3) (b) for all claims of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 (Rs. Five lakhs) and above, and for all claims irrespective of the amount or value of such claims if the issues involved are of a complicated nature. The General Manager shall be the sole judge to decide whether the issues involved are of a complicated nature or not. In the event of the two Arbitrators being divided in their opinions the matter under disputes will be referred to an Umpire to be appointed in the manner laid down in Clause (3) (b) for his decision. (3) (a) (ii ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (b) For the purpose of appointing two arbitrators as referred to in sub-clause (a) (ii) above, the Railway will send a panel of more than three names of gazetted Railway Officers of one or more departments of the Railway to the Contractor, who will be asked to suggest to the General Manager one name out of the list for appointment as the contractor s nominee. The General Manager, while so appointing the contractor s nominee, will also appoint a second arbitrator as the Railway s nominee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "

( 4 ) THE work was scheduled to be completed within one month from the date of acceptance of the offer on 3-2-1989. However, the work could not be completed by that date mainly because several additional works to be executed by the applicant as per the directions of the Railways. Consequently, the date of completion of the work was extended from time to time up to 30/06/1989. According to the applicant, the work was completed by that date, but, according to the Railways, thw work was completed only in July, 1999. It appears that the Railways prep