An arbitrator cannot exceed his jurisdiction by awarding damages in violation of a specific bar or prohibition in the contract.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1999 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on an application filed by the appellant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award The award in this case is a speaking award dated 18th January, 1999 by a retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court.

2. It is not in dispute that by a letter dated 29th August, 1997 passed by a learned Judge of this Court, the Arbitrator was appointed to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. The said order was passed by the learned Judge on a petition under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. By the said order, the learned Judge was pleased to revoke the authority of the previously appointed departmental Arbitrator and appointed Justice L.M. Ghosh, a retired Judge of this Court as arbitrator.

3. The following issues were framed before the learned Arbitrator for decisions :-

1. Whether the rescission of the contract by the respondent is justified or not?

2. Whether the claims of the claimant are admissible on facts and according to law? If so, to what extent and in respect of what items?

3. Is the claimant entitled to any interest? If so, for which period and to what extent?

4. Is the claimant entitled to get any costs of this proceeding?

5. Are the items of counter-claim of the respondent admissible and justified? If so, to what extent and in respect of which items?

6. Is the respondent entitled to get any interest? If so, for which period and to what extent?

7. Is the respondent entitled to get any cost of this proceeding?

8. To what relief or reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled to ?

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised many points assailing the award of the arbitrator. His first point has been that the award of the arbitrator on the first issue, namely, that the rescission of the contract by the respondent was justified, is erroneous. The learned Counsel further submitted that in arriving at the said finding, the learned Arbitrator has not given any decision on the question of handing over of the site by the appellant to the claimant. We have considered the said finding of the arbitrator which is well reasoned and we find that there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the same.

5. But, the learned Counsel for the appellant has raised a rather substantial question about some portions of the award of the arbitrator relying on Clause 18 of the Special Conditions of Contract between the parties. For proper appreciation of that point, this Court sets out hereinbelow the said Clause 18 of the Agreement :-

"18. Idle Labour-No claim whatsoever for idle labour, additional establishment, hire charges of tools and plants etc., will be entertained under any circumstances." (underlined for emphasis)

6. Relying on the said clause, learned Counsel submits that the learned Arbitrator cannot make any award in terms of Claim Nos. 7 and 8 of the Statement of Claims urged by the claimant. Claim No.7 was a claim in respect of idle labour and Claim No.8 was in respect of claim relating to infructuous office expenditure.

7. This Court finds that this is the only substantial point raised in this appeal.

8. This Court has heard Counsel for both the parties in respect of that aspect of the award. This Court finds that this is a reasoned award, the arbitrator has given elaborate reasons while allowing the said claim, namely, Claim No.7. In doing so, the arbitrator has discussed the claim of the claimant and held that, "if there was no delay or default on the part of the respondent (the appellant herein) then the claimant, under the contract, could not claim any amount on account of idle labour. That is to say, when there was idle labour in normal course, and not account of default of the respondent, the claim of the claimant would be barred." After arriving at the said finding, the learned Arbitrator granted the c