The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of revision under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1983 and the jurisdiction of the Adhikaran in resolving work contract disputes.

V.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1983") preferred by the applicant against the award dated 15-2-2006 passed by the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (for short "the Adhikaran") in reference petition No. 16/2005 whereby Nos. 6 1,00,116/-, a part of the claim refusing remainder has been awarded in favour of the applicant.

2. Briefly stated facts are that the applicant was awarded work of remodeling of Mahanadi main canal from 50 KM to 56.38 KM group No. 1 vide written agreement No. 3/DL of 1982-83. The work contract was awarded under written agreement. As per the nomenclature of the work, the applicant had to do excavation in all types of soil alone, but most of the reaches were rocky strata and unless the rocks are excavated it was not possible for him to maintain the desired base of the progress of assigned work, therefore, he requested the authorities for removal of pitching stones so that the work may be taken up in proper sequence and also asked for layout. The applicant gave his willingness to do the extra work, i.e., excavation in DR, SR & HR at the rate of 69% above the USR with separate payment and on assurance given by the non-applicant No. 2 did excavation in rocky strata. Applicant's work was checked and measured, but the extra item of DR and SR was not valued at applicant's quoted rate of 69% above the USR. Applicant also did work of spoil cutting, but his work was not valued at a rate of 69.41% above the USR. As a result of those, applicant suffered short payment of Rs. 8,09,309=20 and Rs. 1,25,095=00 respectively. Towards check and dressing State reduced the payment to Rs. 1,57,830=75. His total work was not measured and his contract was repudiated by the State Government thereby he sustained loss of Rs. 61,120=00 and Rs. 60,000=00 respectively.

3. The claim was not settled amicably; therefore, the dispute was referred to the then Chief Engineer, who was appointed as Sole Arbitrator in terms of the contract, who passed award. Dissatisfied with the award, the same was questioned by both the parties before the District Judge, Raipur. The District Judge, Raipur, set aside the award. Thereafter the Chief Engineer by his letter dated 25-7-1990 directed the applicant to submit the reference petition before the Arbitration Tribunal and accordingly reference was moved.

4. Non-applicants contested the claim, inter alia, on the ground that as per agreement the applicant was required to do the work of excavation in all type of soil for canal earth work by making the canal section as per design different cross sections, either cutting of filling etc. The rate was Rs. 6.19 per cum. No separate lead and lift was payable and no extra payment, claim was allowed for additional work, if developed during executing of the work. Since the work was an item rate work and not a percentage rate tender the demand of applicant for payment of 69% above USR in respect of the extra work was not acceptable, however, the rate of 12.94 per cum for excavation in all type of rocks of canal earth work with no separate demand of lead or lift etc. was settled by the Superintending Engineer and was accepted by the applicant.

5. The Adhikaran after due hearing held that the applicant was bound to accept the rates as settled by the Superintending Engineer which was accepted by him. Similarly he was bound to accept the measurement as recorded in connection with final bill. Since the applicant has completed the quantity to the extent as provided in the agreement, he was asked to stop the work that does not amount to repudiation of the contract. Therefore, having considered all the claims allowed a part of it by impugned award.

6. Learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was permitted to carry out the work of excavation of rocks and his offer to charge rate of 69% above USR was accepted by the Executive Engineer, ther