( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the order of the learned single Judge of this court (Gill, J.) dated 4th Dec. 1975 holding that there was a "manifest error apparent ex facie" so far as daim No. 1 of the appellant/contractor. The learned Judge further held that the award in respect of other claims of the contractor should be made a rule of the court. The appellant-contractor contests part of the order of the learned single Judge which rejects claim No. 1. Claim No. 1 was decided by the Arbitrator as follows:

"the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of 18% over and above their accepted tendered enhancements on the quantum of work executed after December 1970".

( 2 ) THE learned single Judge held that the award in regard to claim No. 1 was contrary to Cl. 10c of the agreement between the parties, that the error was apparent on the face of the award and that the Arbitrator committed misconduct in granting the said claim to the appellant which was beyond his jurisdiction.

( 3 ) THE first contention raised by the appellant is that the finding of the learned single Judge that there was error apparent on the face of the award and that the arbitrator had committed a misconduct