An arbitrator cannot exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon him by the contract between the parties.

( 1 ) [the petitioner entered into a contract with the D. D. A. for doing electric work at Interstate Bus Terminus at Delhi in 1970. Work was to be done in 11 months. It could not be finished due to slow progress of building work. Petitioner made 2 claims that due to rise in prices, his rates should be enhanced by 22% and that due to slow progress of building work, his labour remained idle and he should be allowed Rs 16,500. 00. The matter was referred to arbitrator who awarded enhancement of rates by 18% and awarded Rs 800. 00 for the other claim. Petitioner applied U/ss. 14 and 17 for making award rule of the Court while respondent applied U/ss. 30 and 33 for setting aside of the award. After narrating above facts, the judgement para 13 onwards is :

( 2 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that from the very beginning, the Delhi Development Authority had been totally denying the claim of the contractor on the ground that the enchancement claimed was extra-contractual and that, increase, if any, was permissible only under clause 10 (c) of the agreement, but that too in the event of the happening of certain contigencies. It is submitted by Shri Keshav Dayal that at best the assertion of the contractor for the increase of contractual rate by 18% in the first instance and by 22% in the subsequent representations, amounted to an offer, which was never accepted by the petitioner. The original agreement, therefore, held good as no additional or subsequent agreement had been entered into between the parties. No doubt the prices had shown upward trend during the stipulated period of eleven months and even thereafter, but this did not modify the contract nor it brought about any change in its terms. If there had occasioned a decline in the prices and margin of profits had been higher than what was originally expected, the contract would not have been re-written or modified by bringing down the rates When an agreement is entered into, the contracting parties are always wide awake and are conscious of the risk involved due to unforseen circumstances.

( 3 ) CLAUSE 10 (c) of the agreement is the main plank of the respondent. For its critical appreciation, it seems expedient to reproduce the same below :

"if during the progress of the works, the price of any material incorporated in the works (not being a material supplied from the Engineer-in-Charge stores in accordance with Clause 10 hereof) and/or wages of labour increases as direct result of the coming into force of any fresh law, or statutory rule or order (but not due to any changes in sales tax) and such increase exceed ten per cent of the price and/or wages prevailing at the time of acceptance of the tender for the work, and contract thereupon necessarily and properly pays in respect of the material (incorporated in the work) such increased price and/ or in respect of labour engaged on the execution of the work such increased wages, then the amount of the contract shall accordingly be varied provided always that any increase so payable is not, in the opinion of the Chief Engineer (whose decision shall be final and binding) attributable to delay in the execution of the contract within the control of the contractor. "

( 4 ) THIS clause of the agreement speaks of increase in the price of the material or wages as a result of some fresh law or statutory rule or order only and does not envisage increase due to other reasons. The kind of increase, which was comprehended by the parties was expressly stipulated and was inserted in the agreement in explicit and absolute terms. Once the firm had signified its acceptance to the contract it was tied down to those terms and could not get back or wriggle out simply because it did not suit its interest.

( 5 ) THE contractor has not brought on record any evidence to show that the rise in the prices bad occurred on account of any of causes mentioned in clause 10 (C ). The terms of contract could not, therefore, be