Anil K.Narendran, J.

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.133/1991 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode, a suit for recovery of money filed against the respondents/defendants directing the 1st respondent/1st defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,67,048.50 deducted from various bills together with interest @12% per annum. On receipt of summons the defendants entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the plaint claim.

2. On the side of the plaintiff PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A23 were marked. On the side of the defendants Ext.B1 was marked. After considering the pleadings and evidence on record the trial court decreed the suit in part allowing the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.89,789.50 as the amount unauthorisedly withheld by the defendants together with interest @6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation with proportionate costs. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 5.11.1995 to the extent of limiting the decree to Rs.89,789.50 as against the total claim of Rs.3,67,048.50, the plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal.

3. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents/defendants.

4. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would confine his arguments with regard to two claims, i.e., recovery of Rs.1,00,326/- deducted by the defendants as per bill Nos.23 and 24 dated 16.4.1986 and a further sum of Rs.29,729.50 deducted as per bill Nos.38 and 39 dated 19.5.1986.

5. Going by the pleadings and evidence on record the plaintiff was appointed as a loading/unloading, handling and transport contractor at the West Hill Depot of the 1st defendant Corporation for a period of two years from 22.1.1986 to 21.1.1988 as per the tender conditions entered into between the parties. According to the plaintiff, on receipt of the work order he made arrangements to start work from 22.1.1986. However, due

to the unreasonable demands made by the head load workers at the West Hill Depot he could commence the work only by 3.2.1986, after a settlement was arrived at, at the intervention of the District Labour Officer concerned. Though the plaintiff had requested the defendants not to place any wagons till a settlement is arrived at, wagons were placed at the godown. Alleging that those consignments were re-booked, notices were issued to the plaintiff to show cause for not recovering demurrage charges, re-booking charges, etc. During the whole period of contract a total sum of Rs.5,78,944.50 was deducted from various bills as demurrage charges, re-booking charges, etc. Out of the said amount a sum of Rs.1,00,326/- was deducted towards re- booking charges as per bill Nos.23 and 24 dated 16.4.1986, which relates to the period January and February 1986 when there was strike by the employees demanding higher wages. A further sum of Rs.29,729.50 was deducted towards demurrage charges as per bill Nos.38 and 39 dated 19.5.1986, which relates to the period April 1986.

6. The deduction of Rs.1,00,326/- for the period January and February 1986 was immediately on the plaintiff taking up the contract. According to the plaintiff, though he was issued with the work order on 12.1.1986 to commence the work from 22.1.1986 he could not commence the work because of the agitation by the employees demanding higher wages and this dispute could finally be settled only on 2.2.1986, which according to the plaintiff was a reason beyond his control.

7. The Annexure to Ext.A3 tender dated 15.10.1985 contains the terms and conditions governing the contracts for loading/unloading, handling and transport of food grains, etc. at the godowns of the 1st defendant Corporation at Calicut. Clause XVII of the said terms and conditions deals with delays, strikes, etc. The said clause provides that, the contractors will not be responsible for delays which may arise on account o