The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of contract clauses and legal provisions in determining the wrongful termination of a contract and the consequent compensation claims.

JUDGMENT

1. Mr. Kashyuap, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel led by Mr. Parhi, learned advocate and Assistant Solicitor General appear on behalf of appellants (railway). Mr. Kashyuap submits, awards made on several heads of claim bear patent illegality on the face and are opposed to public policy. He draws attention to paragraphs 7 and 8 in the award, where the 10 claims made were tabulated. He submits, challenge against claim nos.2 to 7 and 9 was erroneously rejected by the Court below. His client is, therefore, in appeal.

2. Claim nos.3, 3(A) and 4 relate to termination of the contract by his client and consequences thereof. He submits, clause 62 in General Conditions of Contract (GCC) provide for circumstances, in which there could be determination of contract owing to default of contractor and the consequences. His client duly terminated the contract upon seven days, followed by 48 hours notices. Entry-(vii) under the clause was relied upon to terminate it. Consequences of the termination provide for forfeiture of security deposits as well as encashment of performance guarantee, by subsequent clause in respect thereof. His client having had acted within four corners of the clauses in the contract, the arbitrator in awarding those claims, did so on committing patent illegality.

3. Award was also made on claim for price variation. Further award was made on claim for refund of statutory increase in minimum wages paid by claimant. He submits, award on price variation claim must include additional claim of refund of statutory increase in minimum wages because, the increase is a variation. The two claims on same count of price variation were wrongfully made, which the arbitrator could not distinguish and awarded.

4. On claim nos.6 and 7, for payment of idling of machineries and their depreciation, the award made does not carry any basis or reason. So also in case of award on claim no.9, for compensation on the balance value of contract work. He adds, there was no term in the contract in regard to such claim.

5. Mr. Panda, learned advocate appears on behalf of the contractor. He refers to his client's statement of claim, wherein stand disclosed special conditions quoted by his client and corresponding remarks made by the railway. He draws attention to entries (i) and (iv) under sub-clause (b) in clause 2 to submit, his client had made it clear that on it not being responsible for any delay in availability of rails, suitable extension of time was to be granted without levy of liquidated damages or any other penalty and resultant idle time also suitably compensated. Suspension and delay on account of the railway were also to be compensated. Remarks were made by the railway. It was said that in case progress of work suffered on account of it, same would be compensated by granting suitable extension of time as per GCC. On the arbitrator being satisfied, upon finding of fact that there were no laches on part of his client, it was held that termination of the contract was wrongful, to consequentially award on claims for refund of security deposits and encashed performance guarantee amount.

6. He draws attention to page 29 in the award, where the arbitrator dealt with his client's claim nos.6 and 7. He submits, there was no error committed by the arbitrator, on facts or in law, for awarding Rs.15,00,000/- on taking cumulative view of the circumstances. He refers to clause 11 in said quoted special conditions to show idle time compensation stood quoted at equivalent to 50 welds per day. He submits, award on the cumulative view took into consideration such count in arriving at the figure, to be a liquidated claim.

7. On compensation for wrongful termination of contract regarding balance value of the work, he draws attention to page 30 in the award to demonstrate that the arbitrator relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in A.T. Brij Paul Singh vs State Of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1703. He relies on two more judgments of the Su