A.P.Chowdhri, J.

1. This Judgment would dispose of these appeals which arise in identical circumstances and raise common question of fact and law.

2. FAO No. 1122 of 1991 is directed against order and decree dated April 26, 1991, of Senior Subordinate Judge, Ropar, dismissing objections filed by the applicant under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act against the award dated June 9, 1990, and making the same rule of the Court.

3. Before dealing with the various points raised in the appeal, brief facts of the case may be set out as under :-

4. The respondent-company, hereinafter referred to as the contractor, was awarded contract by the State of Punjab vide agreement No. 6/86 dated. January 25, 1986, for executing work for the construction of Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal (Irrigation), Punjab portion in reach RD 47000 to 48400 KM (hereinafter called SYL); Disputes or differences having arisen between the parties, the matter was referred by the Chief Engineer, Construction, SYL vide order dated July 28, 1989 to Mr. K.C. Verma, Chief Engineer. Hydel Design, Punjab State Electricity Board, Chandigarh, by name, who was constituted sole arbitrator in terms of Clause 63 of the General Conditi