Thomas, J.

1. The award passed by an Arbitrator was made the rule of the court, and a decree was passed in terms of the award. The State of Kerala and the Superintending Engineer concerned, having failed to get the award set aside, filed this appeal.

2. Different questions, both of law and fact, were canvassed in this appeal including the very appointment of an Arbitrator to decide the disputes. When it was pointed out that the Government did not file any appeal against the order by which the disputes were referred to arbitration, learned Government Pleader made an endeavour to invoke the powers of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution for quashing the appointment order.

3. Some facts, relevant for this appeal, are the following: Respondent was engaged to carry out the work for making approach road to Mamom bridge for which an agreement was executed by him in favour of the Governor of Kerala. The site was handed over to him on 14-9-84. The work should have been completed on or before 13-4-1986 which is the expiry of a period of 19 months of handing over the site. But the contract was terminated on 5-1-86 due to other reasons. Respondent raised the main dispute that