( 1 ) AT the vortex of the controversy that has arisen in these two Appeals is the following Arbitration clause:

"the Arbitrator shall give his Award (within a period of six months from the date of his entering on the Reference or within the extended time as the case may be) on all matters referred to him and shall indicate his findings, along with the sums awarded separately on each item of dispute. "

( 2 ) THE words in parenthesis are not found in every agreement, but that would not make any material difference to the present controversy, since they merely prescribe the period within which the award must be published. This Arbitration Clause has already received judicial scrutiny by several Single Benches of this court. In Charanjit Kochhar v. Union of Indiaand Anr. 2001 VII AD (DELHI) 1164, V. S. Aggarwal, J. has concluded that the word finding does not mandate the recording of reasons in the award. A contrary view has been taken by C. M. Nayar , J. in Walaiti Ram Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. , 1995 (32) DRJ 679, i. e. , that the arbitrator is obliged to give reasons. In FAO (OS) 67-A/84 (hereinafter referred to as uttam Singh s case ) J. D. Jain, J. in his impugned judgment dated 30th April 1984, after der detailed reasoning, has concluded that the Arbitrator was not bound to record a separate and distinct finding on each issue in controversy between the parties or rival contentions of the parties as that would have been tantamount to giving the reasoning in support of the decision. In FAO (OS) 133/91 (hereinafter referred to as parmeshwari Dass s case) p. K. Bahri J. in the impugned judgment dated 2 9/04/1991 has observed that "no conclusions have been given by the arbitrator on these disputes. He has only awarded the sums. It cannot be, hence, said that the arbitrator has give any finding on the disputed questions of facts which were raised before him as was required to be given in accordance with the arbitration clause. It is not possible to hold that the arbitrator has impliedly given any findings when he awarded certain sums. The arbitration clause clearly requires that besides awarding certain sums the arbitrator has to give his findings which the arbitrator, in the present case, failed to give, and thus, the arbitrator has committed judicial misconduct". In Suit No. 1574-A/1999 entitled m/s. Anand Brothers Pvt. Limited v. Union of India and others, decided in February 2002, Dr. Mukundakam sharma, J. has recently reached a conclusion similar to the opinions of C. M. Nayar and P. K. Bahri, JJ. The views of J. D. Jain, J. were not presented to the learned Judge and those of V. S. Aggarwal, J. appear not to have been discussed. From this narration it will be palpably clear that Single Benches have interpreted the said arbitration clause, and more particularly the word finding in divergent manner. Before adumbrating the facts of the two cases before us it would also be appropriate to mention that the said Arbitration Clause has also received the attention of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Union of India v. D. Bose and others, AIR 1981 Calcutta 95. In the proceedings in this Court the Union of India has adopted different and shifting stands, adapted to whether it was in its pecuniary interest to sustain or set aside the Award in question. The Government is expected to be steadfast in its arguments and to pursue a uniform approach in all matters. Therefore,in the five cases which have been decided by the Single Benches of this Court it cannot be appreciated that the Union of India has put forward disparate arguments.

( 3 ) IN order to decide the legal nodus that has arisen in the present case it is necessary to collate the meaning given to the word finding . Some of these are reproduced for easy reference. (A ). In a dictionary of Modern Legal Usage authored by Bryan A. Garner the word finding has been defined as under:

"finding;holdings A court properly has findings of fact and