( 1 ) THE short controversy that calls for determination is whether the interim order/award of the arbitrator ruling on its jurisdiction to determine the dispute, raised by one of the parties is liable to be challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the act ) or not. The controversial clause which has given rise to the interim order/award of the arbitrator and the instant petition is Clause 44 of the agreement. It reads as under: -

"44. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES all disputes and differences of any kind whatever arising out of in connection with the contract or carrying out of the works (whether during the progress of the work or after their completion and whether before or after the determination, abandonment or breach of the contract shall be referred to and settled by the employer, who shall state his decision In writing. Such decisions may be in form of a final certificate or otherwise. The decision of the employer with respect to any or all of the following matters shall be final and binding and without appeal: the applicant is a Cooperative Group Housing society of which Sh,c. M. Mathew is the President. After due negotiations with respondent no. l, the petitioner engaged respondent no. l for the electrical installation in flats constructed by the society and clause 44 is one of the terms of the contract entered into between the parties. Vide letter dated 18. 6. 1998. final bill for the amount of Rs. 14,38,189/- was submitted by respondent no. 1 to the President of the Society. . However, After checking the details, the President of the Society reduced it to rs. 4,11,674/- and sent a cheque of the net balance towards full and final settlement. The crucial question before the Arbitrator was whether the letter dated 27. 6. 1998 whereby cheque for the amount of Rs. 4,11,674/- was forwarded to respondent no. l by referring it as net balance amount towards full and final settlement tantamounted to the decision of the president as contemplated under Clause 44 or not and whether stipulation in the said clause that if the contractor be dissatisfied with the decision of the employer on any matter, question or dispute of any kind except the matters listed above, then and in any such case the Contractor may within twenty eight days, after receiving notice to such decision, give a written notice to employer is of mandatory or directory nature. However, the learned Arbitrator after hearing both the parties came to the conclusion that,the letter dated 27. 6. 1998 cannot be termed as final decision of the president as contemplated under Section 44 and since no letter was given by the respondent accepting the amount towards the full and final settlement mere acceptance of the cheque for the said amount cannot be said to be acceptance of the bill towards full and final settlement. The learned Arbitrator reasoned that "since reduction in the payment of final bill was because of deduction, this itself is a dispute to be looked into on the merit of controversy".

( 2 ) THE other relevant observation of the learned arbitrator is with regard to plea of the respondent that since claimant did not dispute the decision of the president within 28 days, he is debarred from approaching the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator held that whether this clause is directory or mandatory can also be gone into by the arbitrator.

( 3 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the settlement of disputes through the letter dated 27. 6. 1998, the contract itself came to an end and therefore arbitration clause ceased to exist has neither any substance nor any legal force as the Section 16 was specifically brought on the statute book to do away with such objections in order to remove obstacles or obstructions created by the parties in the suit in smooth, efficient and expeditious running of the arbitration proceedings.

( 4 ) THE plea that arbitral tribunal does not have jurisdicti