(Per R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.):

1. Since common questions of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Pursuant to the allotment of work for construction of compound wall and for construction of a bridge over a nullah to the respondents, respective work contracts were entered into between the parties. The work in both the cases was required to be completed within a specified time. However, since it could not be completed within the said period, the time for completion of the work was extended. Consequent to the dispute arising between the parties, same was referred to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreements. The learned arbitrator had held that the respondents would be entitled to claim 15% escalation charges as against the 30% escalation charges claimed by the respondents for the period beyond the expiry of the contractual period. As the appellants herein were not satisfied with the awards, they preferred petition under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, herein after referred to as "the said Act", for setting aside of the award. Consequently, the awards were partially modified to the benefit of the respondents. Being dissatisfied, the appellants have preferred these appeals.

3. The challenge to the impugned judgments and consequently to the awards is three-fold: firstly, that the learned arbitrator could not have granted the claim for escalation of rates made by the respondents and, secondly, that the contract between the parties does not provide for second final bill and therefore no claim based on the second final bill could have been allowed by the learned arbitrator and thirdly that the arbitrator could not have entertained the dispute having been raised beyond the period of limitation. The challenge to the awards regarding grant of the claim for escalation of rates is on two grounds: firstly, that the claim could not have been granted in view of Clauses 18 and 34 of the agreement between the parties and secondly, that the respondents had already issued "No Due Certificate" and, therefore, any claim made after the issuance of such certificate could not have been granted.

4. As regards the first ground of challenge to the grant of escalation charges to the respondents, it is the case of the appellants that the escalation charges granted are for the period subsequent to the contractual period which is contrary to the terms of the contract in view of Clause Nos.18 and 34. The said clauses clearly indicate that the contract price was not subject to rise or fall in prices and therefore the appellants were not liable to pay any escalation charges. Reliance is sought to be placed in the decision in the matter of New India Civil Erectors (P.) Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, reported in AIR 1997 SC 980, and in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. J.C. Budharaja, Government and Mining Contractor, reported in AIR 1999 SC 3275 as well as State of Orissa v. Sri S.C. Roy (dead) by LRs., reported in JT 2001 (5) SC 267. Secondly, it is the contention of the appellants that the terms of the contract between the parties nowhere provide for any second final bill as such and this is also very clear from the Clauses 31 and 32 of the agreement and once the respondents had submitted the final bill, and further had issued the no claim certificate, it was not open for the arbitrator to grant any claim based on the second final bill. It is their case that the contractor was obliged to incorporate all his claims under the final bill which was duly confirmed by him on issuance of the no claim certificate. In that regard, reliance is sought to be placed in the decision in the matter of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. M/s. Annapurna Construction, reported in AIR 2003 SC 3660. In any case, it is the contention on behalf of the appellants that the arbitrator misconducted himself in ignoring the no claim certificate a