An award of arbitrators will not be set aside on the ground of error of law on the face of the award unless a legal proposition incorporated in the award or a document appended to it is erroneous.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the Union of India from the orders of A. N. Ray, J. refusing to set aside the award of the Arbitrators dated the 13th day of June, 1958. The Union of India made an application to set aside the award of the Arbitrators on a number of grounds and that application was dismissed by the learned Judge.

( 2 ) THE main argument on behalf of the Union of India in this appeal is that the award is bad on the face of it. It is also contended on behalf of the Union of India that the award contains erroneous decisions in law and in fact. The award in this case is a long award running into 12 printed pages. It is argued on behalf of the Union of India that the award gives reasons which are erroneous.

( 3 ) MR. M. N. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the Union confined his arguments in challenging the award mainly to the findings of the Arbitrators and their decision on issues 7, 10, 12, 13, 15 and 17. It will be necessary, therefore, to briefly refer to the nature of these different issues. The dispute between the appellant and the respondents arose in connection with tender and work for blast oven and loading coal into the tubs, trams and wagons at Kargali collieries under the direction of the Chief Mining Engineer, Railway Board and his Officers.

( 4 ) THE 7th issue raises the question whether the Chief Mining Engineer or the Manager, Superintendent of Collieries or the G. C. A. or any authorised agent of the Union agreed on behalf of the Union to pay any extra charges. The 10th issue relates to the question whether the Agreement dated the 26th August, 1952, constitutes a new agreement and prevents the respondents from making any claim after that date. The 11th issue raises the question first whether in fact the respondent did any extra work and secondly whether the appellant enjoyed the benefit of such extra work and if so was the appellant liable to compensate for such extra work done. The 12th issue raises the question whether the appellant was bound by the contract particularly mentioned in paragraph 15 of the statements of fact before the Arbitrators. The 13th issue raises the question whether the appellant ratified the contract mentioned in the same paragraph of the statement of facts. The 17th issue raised the question of Limitation, which it must be recorded here, Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for, the Union, definitely abandoned before us. The 15th issue raises the question whether the respondent carried out the work in dispute under the faith that the alleged assurances given by the officers of the appellant were legal and binding and if such assurances were discovered to be void whether the appellant was bound to restore the benefits received by him.

( 5 ) THE Arbitrators by their award found (1) that the assurances and the agreement were duty ratified by and on behalf of the Government and in any event the ratification was made by the Chief Mining Engineer who had the authority to do so as also to enter into the contract, (2) that the agreement dated the 26th August, 1952 was only meant to fulfil the requirements of the Constitution and not to bring about any change in the agreement, (3) that the respondent did carry out the extra work in the faith that the assurances given by the officers concerned were legal and binding on the appellant and that such assurances were neither illegal nor unenforceable, and, (4) that there was positive evidence to show that the Chief Mining Engineer and other officers of the Union promised to reimburse the respondent for expenses of the extra work done. The Arbitrators also held by their Award that no part of the claim was barred by limitation. On the face of these findings the Arbitrators gave an Award in favour of the respondent for the sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- against the Union of India and allowed Rs. 2,000/- as cost.

( 6 ) MR. Banerjee attacked these findings by saying that the Arbitrators by this decision have committed errors of law by deciding