MANMOHAN, J : (Oral)

1. Present objection petition has been filed by petitioner-claimant under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1996”) challenging the Award dated 4th July, 2008 passed by Mr. K.K. Varma, Sole Arbitrator.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that respondent floated a tender for work under the name and style of “Construction of Delhi College of Engineering in West Delhi on the periphery of Rohini Complex at Badli, Delhi – Development of site excluding bulk services.

SH: C/o Roads in residential area. Phase-I”.

3. After negotiation, the work was awarded to petitioner-claimant vide letter dated 8th September, 1986. Though 17th March, 1987 was the stipulated date of completion, the work was actually completed on 30th January, 1991.

4. As the petitioner-claimant was aggrieved on account of non-payments of some of its claims, it filed a petition under Section 11(6) of Act, 1996 in this Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, Mr. K.K. Varma was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator.

5. After hearing the parties at length, the Arbitrator rendered his Award dated 4th July, 2008. Subsequently, on 28th July, 2008 the Arbitrator under Section 33 of Act, 1966 corrected an error in para 4.7.3. of the Award.

6. Petitioner-claimant by way of the present petition has challenged the Award in respect of Claim Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7 and Counter Claim No. 1.

7. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner-claimant submitted that the Arbitrator had erroneously rejected petitioner-claimant’s claim under Clause 10C of the Agreement. Mr. Sharma stated that the Executive Engineer was himself the labour officer and in case the minimum wages as prescribed from time to time were not paid then the Executive Engineer was empowered to make deductions. Therefore, Mr. Sharma submitted that there was no need to give any prior notice claiming payments under Clause 10C of the Agreement. In the alternative, Mr. Sharma submitted that notice in fact had been issued to respondent vide Exhibit C-21 dated 22nd December, 1987 and Exhibit C-26 whereby daily wages register had been submitted for verification and necessary action. 8. On the other hand, Ms. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for respondent submitted that issuing a notice under Section 10C was not an empty formality. In this context, she drew my attention to the following paragraphs of the Award:-

“4.3.1. The recorded date of completion of work as also accepted by claimants during 10th hearing, is 30.01.1991. During arguments, claimants referred to exhibits C-42 dated 28.09.2002; C-43 dated 19.09.1995 and C-44 dated 22.02.1996 regarding their claim under clause 10C. When asked, claimants were unable to produce any reference made to respondents during the currency of the contract i.e. upto 30.01.1991 regarding clause 10C. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx

4. 3.2(d) Hence the issue of notice is not a mere formality but a matter of substance. Since clause 10C is meant for reimbursement of higher wages paid to labour timely notice would have provided an opportunity to respondents to inspect the books of accounts of claimants to verify whether the amounts due on account of the stated statutory increase in the wages of labour have been actually and properly paid or not. In the absence of any notice at the relevant point of time, respondents could not carry out this exercise of verification of books of accounts as enshrined in clause 10C. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 4.3.4. Mere payment of minimum wages to labour, which is a requirement under the law, does not entitle claimants for reimbursement under clause 10C. For reimbursement under this clause, issue of timely notice, as envisaged in the clause itself, is mandatory and in the absence of such a notice, the claim is not tenable. I, therefore, award a sum of Rs.Nil against this claim.” 9. Ms. Salwan further stated that Exhibit C-26 was never received by respondent and, in fact, it bore a forg