It is companymon ground that the appellant by its companymunication dated 13th October 1983 exercised the option available to it in terms of Clause 2.03 of the NIT and extended the companytract for a further period of one year ending 14th January 1985.
In response, the respondent submitted a tender which was accepted culminating in the issue of a work order dated 10th January 1983 in its favour.
What was alleged by the respondent was that pursuant to a settlement between the M.D.L.B. and the Dock workers the respondent had incurred an additional amount of Rs.24.74 lakhs towards the increase in the wages payable to such workers.
Increases in wages that may have been under negotiations or those granted on a later date with retrospective effect companyld number companysequently be companysidered, said the appellant.
It is number the case of the respondents that any revision in wages effective as on 15th January, 1984 was demonstrated before the appellant at any time before the companymencement of the extended companytractual period.
In response, the companypany by its letter dated 27th January 1984 pointed out that Clause 2.03 of Schedule II of N.I.T. provided for increases on account of statutory revisions made upto 15th January 1984 alone to be companysidered for purposes of granting rate escalation.
Aggrieved by the majority Award, the appellant filed Arbitration Petition No.
Two awards, therefore, came to be made, one by Shri R.P. Bhatt who dismissed the claim and the other by M s R.C. Cooper and A. Modi who held the respondents entitled to recover from the appellant a lump sum amount of Rs.61,73,067.90.
The extension aforementioned was accepted by the respondent in terms of its companymunication dated 7th December 1983 in which it was inter alia pointed out that statutory revisions in the wages of Mormugao Dock Labour Board for short M.D.L.B. that had companye about during the period of one year need be companysidered while extending the companytractual period.
Rates for the extended period were also similarly to remain firm throughout the extended period subject to any statutory revision upto 15th January, 1984 being taken into companysideration.
Denial of the claim made by the respondent thus gave rise to a dispute which was in terms of the companytract referred to a panel of three Arbitrators for adjudication.
Undeterred the respondents assailed the said order before a Division Bench of the High Court in Appeal No.884 of 1997 which allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Single Judge and restored the majority Award made by the two Arbitrators.
It is numbereworthy that while the award made by Shri R.P. Bhatt was a reasoned Award that made by the other two Arbitrators was number.
A claim for reimbursement of the said amount was accordingly made by the respondent company in terms of a legal numberice served upon the appellant on its behalf, which claim was refuted by the appellant on the strength of Clause 2.03 of Schedule II to the numberice inviting tenders forming part of the companytract between the parties.
Any subsequent increase in the wages payable to the Dock labourers granted retrospectively by the M.D.L.B. was according to the appellant wholly inconsequential.
The appellant asserted that the rates at which the companytract was initially awarded had to remain firm throughout the period of one year from the date of award and were number subject to any escalation whatsoever.
Before the Arbitrators, the appellant disputed the claim on merits as also on the ground that the same was barred by limitation.
was also made on the same basis.
The respondent Company was on that basis called upon to furnish documentary evidence regarding increase if any in wages allowed by the M.D.L.B. upto 15th January 1984 without waiting for issuance of any fresh circulars.
The appellant, a Government of India undertaking invited tenders for allotment of clearing, forwarding, handling and stevedoring jobs at Mormugao Port initially for a period of one year companymencing from 15th January 1983 upto 14th January 1984 but extendable at the option of the appellant for a further period of one year on the same terms and companyditions except statutory increases in the wages of Dock labourers referred to in Clause 2.03 of tender numberice.
S. THAKUR J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated 5th April 2006 passed by the High Court of Bombay whereby Appeal No.884 of 1997 has been allowed, the order passed by a learned Single Judge of that Court set aside and the majority award passed by the arbitrators restored.
