The Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an award on the claim of reimbursement of revised rate of wages if the agreement provides for escalation of wages.

1. This appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Howrah dated 30th April, 2010 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 73 of 2008. We fail to understand why this matter has been nomenclatured as Misc. Appeal, as it was a proceedings under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the said Act). We, therefore, desire that the learned Additional District Judge will examine this aspect, at a later stage of the proceedings whether this type of nomenclature is permissible under the law or not.

2. The Railway authorities, who are the respondents before us, being aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Arbitral Tribunal dated 16th January, 2008, filed an application under section 34 of the said Act on various grounds. However, substance of such grievance is that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has exceeded jurisdiction while making the award on the claim of reimbursement of revised rate of wages, claimed to have been paid by the appellant.

3. The short fact leading to initiating the arbitration proceedings and also that of before the learned trial Judge and the appeal before us, is as follows.

4. By an agreement in writing, the appellant before us, agreed to render services as contractor of loading and unloading parcel consignments of various customers at two Railway stations viz. Serampore and Seoraphuli. At the time of entering into the agreement, the rate of wages to be paid by the appellant was prescribed; however, according to the appellant this rate was changeable and variable from time to time, as per clause 14 of the agreement.

5. It was the contention that strictly in terms of clause 14 of the agreement, the enhanced rate of wages was paid to the workers and/or labourers engaged by the appellant from the pool of a co-operative society, called VIP Co-operative Society, which is the monopoly supplier of work force to the appellant.

6. It was also the claim that the Railway authorities from time to time accepted revisional rate of wages and reimbursement was made on account of payment made at revised rate. The dispute arose after 1991 when the Railway authorities refused to reimburse the difference of payment of wages paid to the workers.

7. The matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, manned by three persons out of whom two are the nominees of both the parties and remaining is the Chairman.

8. It appears from the statement of claim that the claim as narrated above, was repeated and reiterated. The Railway authorities have also filed counter-statement of fact. In the counter-statement, it was stated that there has been no provision in the agreement for reimbursement of difference of wages on account of revised rate of wages. It was also stated that no revised payment was actually made by the appellant to the workers.

9. On these two basic issues, the learned Arbitral Tribunal heard the parties inviting documents to be submitted and documents were submitted admittedly. Hearing was given and there was no complaint that there has been any breach of principle of natural justice.

10. The learned Arbitral Tribunal after having considered all the documents produced before it, held that the appellant had been able to substantiate the claim, not wholly but substantially. The learned Arbitral Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,84,890/- on account of reimbursement of difference of payment of wages at the revised rate to the labourers for two stations. As far as the claim of interest, the same was disallowed. The learned Arbitral Tribunal directed to refund the security amount; however, refused to pass any award on account of loss of injury, alleged to have been suffered by the appellant. Thus, the learned Arbitral Tribunal awarded an aggregated sum of Rs. 13,65,515/- together with interest @ 18% per annum in the event the aforesaid awarded amount was not paid within sixty days from the date of publication of the award.

11. The appellant b