Contract Dispute

This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the Award
dated 16th October, 2006. The undisputed facts between the parties are that the tenders
for the subject work were submitted on 21.12.1989 and the work was awarded to the
respondent by the petitioner vide letter dated 16.03.1990 with the awarded value of the
work of Rs.85,79,315/-, which was 64.64% gross without deduction of rebates for timely
payments and 64.34% net above after adjustment of rebates on the estimated cost
of Rs.52,20,467/-. The estimated cost was based on Delhi Schedule of Rates, 1985. The
stipulated period of completion was six months to be reckoned after 10th day from the
date of acceptance of the tender as per award letter. Thus, the stipulated date of start of
the work was 26.03.1990. Undisputedly, the work was not completed within the
stipulated period of six months upto 25.09.1990 and work prolonged beyond about six
months upto 30.06.1993 for further period of about 33 months. The recorded date of
completion is 30.06.1993.

Ld Arbitrator noted that the petitioner (claimant) did not give appropriate notice to
respondent about the increase in minimum wages and did not produce any proof of
payment of higher wages paid to labourers in claim No. 3. The petitioner had claimed a
sum of Rs. 5 Lacs under Clause 10C in claim No. 3. The Ld held it after taking Ex.C12
and C16 into account. The arbitrator found that the petitioner had only requested payment
under Clause 10C and had not given the respondent (DDA) the chance to investigate the
claim by giving information about the statutory rise in the minimum wage of labour. It
was noted that the petitioner failed to present any documentation before the arbitral
tribunal to support the claim.