M.P. Rajya Setu Nirman Nigam Ltd. And vs R. K. Engineering Constructions, Engineers & Contractors

P.K. Jaiswal, J

This civil revision under Section 19 of The M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been filed against the award dated 23.2.2000 by

which M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal allowed the claim of the respondentâ€"contractor in part and awarded Rs.3,49,837/-with proportionate cost

and interest out of total claim of Rs.11,94,605/- under various heads.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent's tender for work of construction of submersible bridge across Kshipra river in k.m. 4/2 of

Ujjain Bherongarh road was sanctioned for a lumpsum cost of Rs.52,33,000/-. After executing the agreement, the work order to start the work was

issued on 15.12.1988 for completing the work in 20 months excluding monsoon period from 16th June to 15th

According to the contractor, soon after receiving the work order, he mobilized his resources and arrived at site of work with men, material,

equipment and machinery and established his camp. The general arrangement drawing (G.A.D.) was approved by General Manager â€" I (designs)

on 14.12.1988 but the Project Manager intimated him that certain changes/modifications in the G.A.D. had been suggested by him for which decision

is awaited. The contractor vide his letter dated 3.2.1989 brought the delay in giving at layout to the notice of the Project Manager, the layout was

finally completed on 3.3.1989. Thus, the work was delayed due to delay in giving layout. The contractor further stated that the work was also delayed

due to not deciding foundation level of abutments, non-supply of steel required for foundation, delay in approval of drawings. The work was also

delayed due to collapse of foundation of abutments resulting in extra burden of re-excavation, additional work of construction of extra brackets for

carrying water pipe lines. Due to these reasons, the work could not be completed in stipulated time and finally completed on 15.3.1992. The time was

extended without any penalty upto 15.3.1992. The contractor has claimed for compensation for delay. It is also alleged that he had not paid for extra

items such as re-excavation of abutments, extra rate for Narmada sand, extra rate for construction of R.C.C. brackets etc., the department had

wrongly recovered hire charges for departmental centering/shuttering and recovered amount for extra recovery made from de-watering and not paid

the final bill and also not refunded the security deposit. The summary of claims of the contractor is as follows:-

Claim No.1 : Claim for extra item of re-excavation of the abutment foundations. A-1 and A-2 : Rs.41,855/-

Claim No.2: Claim for idling of skilled labour, operators and machinery Rs.60,000/-

Claim No.3: Claim for extra payment for use of Narmada sand: Rs.2,42,550/-

Claim No.4: Claim for extra rate for construction of R.C.C. brackets Rs.50,000/-

Claim No.5: Claim for refund of part hire charges recovered for the depttal. Centering/shuttering Rs.80,959/-

Claim No.6:Â Claim for infructuous overhead expenses made on erecting of centering/shuttering for span A2P5 Rs.25,000/-

Claim No.7: Claim for re-excavation of foundation of pier P2 Rs.1,25,050/-

Claim No.8: Claim for refund of extra recovery made for de-watering Rs.50,000/-

Claim No.9 Claim for wrongfully held amounts of final bill and security deposit Rs.70,000/-

Claim No.10: Claim for interest on wrongfully held amounts : Rs.1,66,960/-

Claim No.11: Claim for compensation for delay and breaches of contract Rs.2,82,595/-

Total of all the claims comes to Rs.11,94,605/-. The contractor also claimed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the

amount of award and cost of arbitration proceedings.

The department denied in general all the claims of the contractor and stated that the contractor filed his quantified claims on 16.4.1992 for idling of

labour, extra work and extra rate for Narmada sand before the Managing Director, therefore, the petition is time barred and prayed for dismissal of

the petition.

The M.P. Arbitration Tribunal vide order dated 7.10.1995 held that the claim No.2 for idling of skilled labour, operators and machinery valued at

Rs.60,000/- in the reference petition was time barred, that claim was dismissed as time barred but the reference petition in time with respect to

remaining other claims.

The learned Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence filed by the parties, allowed the claim Nos.1, 3, 9, 10 and 11 in part,

which reads as under:-

 “CLAIM No. 1 : CLAIM FOR EXTRA ITEM OF REEXCAVATION OF ABUTMENT FOUNDATIONS A1 A2 : Rs.41,855/-

9.1 The petitioner claimed this amount on the basis that he has excavated the foundation of abutments upto RL 471 on 16.12.1989 and 8.1.1990

respectively. But the approval of foundation level and foundation design was delayed. The foundation level of Bherongarh side abutment was

approved at RL 469.30 vide General Manager's letter dated 25.5.1990 and design of abutments on either side was approved vide letter dated

26.6.1990. Thus, it was not possible to do further excavation of abutments for laying concrete before rainy season and the excavated foundations

collapsed and filled with debris of sand and boulder and muck during rainy season resulting in extra burden of reexcavation. The petitioner requested

for extra charges for excavation vide his letter dated 19.8.1990 and bill for reexcavation was submitted vide his letter dated 3.1.1991. The petitioner

submitted claims for this also vide his letter dated 2.3.1991 and a reminder was also issued on 16.4.1991. The petitioner further stated that Zonal

Manager ultimately heard the claims case and agreed to pay for reexcavation. The reexcavation is done in abutments and ordered that

“reexcavation in wet soil only be paidâ€. The Project Manager interpreted it as payment for extra in wet soil only and created confusion and

reexcavation of soil in two abutments after rains has not been paid.

9.2 The respondents denied this claim and denied that the Project Manager wrongly interpreted orders of the Zonal Manager as there is no ambiguity

in the interpretation. They have also stated that the petitioner has failed to justify his claims and has not given any break up of the amount claimed.

9.3 From the material available on record, it is seen that foundation level of abutment approved at RL 469.3 vide Ex.P-15 dated 17.5.1990 which is

intimated to the petitioner vide Project Manager's endorsement dated 25.5.1990. In this letter, revised design of abutments was asked from the

petitioner to suit this foundation level. The petitioner submitted design on 18.5.1990 which was approved by the General Manager (designs)'s letter

dated 26.6.1990 Ex.P-16. From M.B. Art. 'B', it is seen that foundation level of Ujjain side abutment was recorded at RL 469 on 18.4.1990 at page 6

and Bherongarh side abutment at RL 469.30 on 6.5.1990 but design of these abutments are approved on 26.6.1990 when rainy season has already

started, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for any reexcavation required after the rains of 1990 in foundation of abutments. The petitioner demanded

this extra payment under C1. 2.7.1 of the N.I.T. vide his letter dated 19.8.1990 Ex. P-61 and submitted details of measurement and calculations for

reexcavation vide his letter dated 3.1.1991 Ex.P-38. The Project Manager also submitted the application of the petitioner alongwith the scrutinized

calculations to the Zonal Manager vide Ex.D-27 dated 23.2.1991 with remarks that the contractor has claimed on account of late approval of designs

of abutments which he has already excavated much earlier to monsoon. The approved designs received in his office on 17.9.1990. The petitioner has

submitted claim for Rs.41,855.35 which is scrutinized by the Asstt. Manager and corrected to Rs.33, 873/-. The Zonal Manager decided the claims of

the petitioner vide Ex.P-27 dated 31.3.1992 in which it is ordered that after perusal of record and statement of Project Manager and the Contractor

the payment of reexcavation in wet soil in only payable. From above discussion, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for payment of

Rs.33,873/- as scrutinized by the Asstt. Manager and intimated by the Project Manager to the Zonal Manager.

CLAIM No.3 :Â Â CLAIM FOR EXTRA PAYMENT OF USE OF NARMADA SAND :Rs.2,42,550/-

11.1 The petitioner claimed this amount on this ground that quarry chart appended as Annexure 'C' specified source of sand as near Mangalnath

nearby site â€" approximate lead from Bridge site â€" 5 kms. As clause 3.9 gives freedom to the petitioner to bring material from other quarry if the

material satisfied relevant Indian Standard and M.O.S.T. Specifications, it was not obligatory for the petitioner to bring sand from a particular quarry,

however, the Project Manager vide his letter dated 12.4.1991 insisted the petitioner to bring sand from Narmada river. The petitioner stated that since

the lumpsum cost did not include use of Narmada sand, the petitioner demanded payment of extra rate of Rs.330/- per cum. for use of Narmada sand.

It is also stated that Project Manager was agreeable and recommended vide his letter dated 23.5.1991 a rate of Rs.290/- per cum. The payment has

not been approved by the Zonal Manager.

11.2 The respondents resisted this claim stating that the contention of the petitioner that it was not obligatory for him to bring sand from a particular

quarry of the respondent's choice is only partially true to the extent that if sand brought by the petitioner confirms to Indian Standard and MOST

specifications then respondents have no occasion to interfere to bring sand from particular quarry. But if the sand do not match with the above

standards, the respondents are at liberty to compell the petitioner to bring sand from a source which confirms the Indian Standard and MOST

specifications. The respondents further stated that due to forthcoming Sinhasth many works were in progress of various departments, respondents

were informed by the Commissioner, Ujjain vide his letter dated 19.3.1991 that sand of Mangalnath and its nearby locality do not confirms to standards

as decided by other Govt. authorities, therefore, the Commissioner decided to arrange for some other sand confirming to standards. The respondents

further stated that as per directions of the Commissioner, Ujjain, the respondents should work under the supervision of the Commissioner, who had

directed the petitioner to bring sand from Narmada river which was upto specification. They have also stated that the petitioner himself never tried to

use the sand of good quality, therefore, directions were given. The respondents also stated that if the petitioner was in a position to manage local sand

of I.S. specification, he could have protested before the Commissioner and also before other authorities but he never protested or shown any

specification or test reports that the local sand was upto prescribed specification. The respondents denied this claim saying that petitioner never

demanded extra rate for using Narmada sand, never protested before Commissioner or department and never reminded the department for charging

extra rates.

11.3 The Project Manager vide his letter Ex.P-18 dated 12.4.1991 wrote to the petitioner that course and at site is not suitable, you are hereby asked

to bring Narmada sand of proper grading only for R.C.C. purpose. The petitioner in reply to above letter wrote to the Project Manager vide his letter

dated 22.4.1991 Ex.P-42 in which it is stated that they started using only Narmada sand from 20.4.1991, prior to this, they were using sand from

Gambhir river. Before use, this sand was tested twice in Ujjain Engineering College and was found satisfactory as per I.S. 383 â€" 1970. The sand

has also been tested in Central Soil and Material Research Station, New Delhi and found satisfactory as per I.S. 383 â€" 1970. It is also stated that

with this sand about 70% sub-structure is completed and hundreds of concrete cubes were tested at site and in Ujjain Engineering College and

Crushing strength of cubes was found absolutely satisfactory at every time, therefore, as per C1.3.9 of N.I.T. the Gambhir river sand satisfy the

relevant I.S. Code. The petitioner also stated in this letter that specific instruction for Narmada sand is beyond the scope of the contract agreement,

therefore, they are entitled for difference of cost between the two sands and demanded Rs.330/- per cum. and requested that he may be compensated

side by side so that work progress may not be hampered. Copy of this letter is also sent to the Managing Director and Zonal Manager. The petitioner

also submitted claim to Zonal Manager vide his letter dated 10.7.1991 Ex.P-48 in which it is mentioned that the Project Manager, Ujjain had already

forwarded this case to him with his recommendation vide letter No.1031 dated 26.4.1991. The petitioner further demanded cost difference between

the local and Narmada sand vide his letter dated 2.3.1992 (wrongly typed as 2.3.1991) while claiming other items also. The Project Manager also

forwarded one application in original to the Zonal Manager stating that the contractor has been asked to use Narmada sand and as per local enquiry

from market a truck having 5 cms. is costing Rs.2000/- per truck. Hence, difference of Rs.290/- per cum. is recommended for sympathetic

consideration. The Zonal Manager in his letter Ex.P-27 dated 31.3.1992 ordered with respect to this claim that “test report and other data for

which hearing is fixed on 9.4.1992, on receipt of it, the claim will be decidedâ€. There is nothing on record that compliance of this order is made by the

Project Manager or the claim was decided. But the petitioner sent a letter Ex.P-66 dated 9.10.1991 with reference to his letter dated 22.4.1991,

10.7.1991 in which it is mentioned that as per his instructions they have casted concrete cubes of local sand for M-350 strength in presence of the

Project Manager, Indore and these cubes were tested at Ujjain Engineering College, their results are quite satisfactory. A sheet is enclosed with this

letter which shows the 28 days strength of concrete strength using only local sand and strength of concrete cubes using 23% Narmada sand and 77%

local sand. These results are said to be Ujjain College test report No.GECU/Civil/testing/7206/91 dated 9.10.1991 with reference to AMS letter

No.QL/camp/dated 30.9.1991 as per this sheet the local sand is shown to be quite fit for M.350 concrete.

11.4 Clause 3.9 of the agreement which is for the material for construction provides that source and lead of the materials such as metal, sand, etc.

mentioned in the N.I.T. are for quidance, the contractor may use material from other quarries but the material must satisfy the relevant Indian

Standard and Codes. It is also provided in this clause that no extra will be payable if the quality and quantity of any material in the quarries specified in

annexure 'C' are found to be inadequate or the distance of the quarry from the site varies. From the letter of the Commissioner, Ujjain Ex.D-15 dated

18.3.1991, it is seen that the Commissioner wrote to the Managing Director that the Secretary, P.W.D. has given instructions to the Project Manager

that in Bherongarh bridge local sand is being used, this sand may be tested in Building Research Institute, Delhi and proposed that use of Narmada

sand will be more safe and stated that in other work such as Hariphatak bridge and Gambhir river dam, Narmada sand is being used on the basis of

test report in the past. In this letter, it is also mentioned that the Project Manager informed the Commissioner that due to sue of Narmada sand, cost of

bridge will increase. On this point also, the Commissioner mentioned that the cost is not the important factor then to the safety of the public and wrote

that whatever decision be taken, it should be taken very early.

11.5 From above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner used local sand (Gambhir river) for this work from December, '1989 to April, '1991 and the

respondents have not objected at any time. Commissioner, Ujjain has not specifically ordered but left the decision on the Managing Director for the

use of Narmada sand. The petitioner had immediately after the receipt of the letter from the Project Manager informed his intention for charging the

difference of rate of two sands and Project Manager also forwarded his application to the Zonal Manager, the Zonal Manager after hearing both the

parties asked for the test reports for local sand which was already submitted by the petitioner vide his letter Ex.P-66 receipt of which is acknowledged

on this letter. There is nothing on the record which shows that the local sand was not as per I.S. Standards. Thus, in our considered view the petitioner

is entitled for the difference of cost in sand. The petitioner had demanded Rs.330/- per cum. whereas the Project Manager recommended after local

market enquiry the difference as Rs.290/- per cum. which appears to be reasonable, the quantity of sand is not disputed. Therefore, in our considered

view, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.735 x 290 = Rs.2,13,150/-.

CLAIM No.9 : CLAIM FOR WRONGFULLY WITHHELD AMOUNT OF FINAL BILL AND SECURITY DEPOSIT : Rs.70,000/-Â Â

17.1 The petitioner stated that he has submitted 22nd and final bill vide his letter dated 13.5.1992 making it clear that escalation charges are subjected

to the clarification after uptodate indices. The petitioner reminded the S. E. for settling the claims of extra items and payment of final bill vide letters

dated 17.9.1992, and dated 30.9.1992 and also referred the matter to the Chief Engineer for fixing reasonable hire charges vide his letter dated

27.6.1992 and further reminded vide his letter dated 28.10.1992. The petitioner further stated that since final bill was not paid, he has reminded the

E.E. On 13.1.1993 but the Asstt. Engineer vide his letter dated 12.3.1993 asked the petitioner to submit royalty clearance certificate from the Mining

Deptt. A reply was submitted vide petitioner's letter dated 2.5.1993 clarifying the position that the agreement did not contain any such provision and

also opposed the E.E. vide letter dated 3.5.1993 that interest will be charged from delayed payment after three months of its submission, but the final

bill is still not paid, therefore, the petitioner claimed this amount.

17.2 The respondents stated in the reply that the contention of the petitioner that the amount is wrongfully withheld is not correct. Since, the petitioner

has failed to comply with the instructions about return of centering/shuttering material, royalty clearance from Mining Deptt. clearance of M.P.E.B.

dues etc. in absence of compliance of these instructions, the respondents have legally and lawfully withheld these amounts but part security deposit

has also been released in installments.

17.3 The petitioner has submitted final bill vide his letter Ex.P-29 dated 13.5.1992 in which he has also added the amounts of claim Nos.1 to 7 claimed

separately in this reference petition. The respondents prepared final bill from pages 136 to 149 of M.B. Art. 'C' in which the amounts of escalation and

rate difference of H.T. steel is also added. During arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that he has no dispute about the final bill

prepared and he has received approximately Rs.50,000/- against it. His balance security deposit remains to be refunded, therefore, he has combined

these two claims. The learned counsel also argued that there is no provision in the agreement for recovery of amount of royalty and recovery of

M.P.E.B. Bills. Respondents' learned counsel argued that petitioner's final bill is in minus Rs.26,057/- which has been adjusted against balance security

deposit and no balance security deposit remained to be refunded. From the perusal of memorandum of payment of final bill on page 151, it is seen that

the final bill is in plus Rs.53,267/- from which the respondents shown recovery of Rs.1494/- as income -tax, Rs.10/- as cost of bill form, Rs.34,056/-

cost of staging material, Rs.24,912/- as amount of royalty and Rs.18,852/- as electricity bill of M.P.E.B., the total recovery comes to Rs.79,324/- .

Thus, the final bill is shown as minus Rs.26,057/- (Rs.53,267 â€" Rs.79,324). This Tribunal has taken view that since there is no provision of recovery

of royalty charges, the respondents are not entitled to recover royalty charges from the bills of the petitioner. They have also not produced any

evidence that they have actually paid royalty charges. Payment of royalty is the responsibility of the petitioner to the concerned department.

Therefore, in our opinion, the amount of royalty charges shown as recovery in the final bill is not justified. Similarly, the electricity bills of M.P. E.B.

for which M.P.E.B. can take action as per law for recovery from the petitioner, the respondents are not entitled to recover this amount also.

Considering this, the respondents are entitled for recovery of income-tax, cost of bill form and cost of staging material only from the final bill. The total

recovery will be Rs.35,560/-, therefore, the net amount payable in the final bill will be Rs.53,267/- minus Rs.35,560/- = Rs.17,707/-. Therefore, the

petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs.17,707/- against the final bill and Rs.26,057/- against the refund of security deposit which has been stated to be

adjusted against minus amount of final bill. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for payment of Rs.43,764/- against this claim.

CLAIM No.10 : CLAIM FOR INTEREST ON WRONGFULLY HELD AMOUNT Rs. 1,66,960/-

The petitioner claimed this amount stating that he is entitled to amount of final bill and claims etc. with interest because if this payment had been

made in time, the petitioner would have saved the interest on borrowed money and claimed interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of claims w.e.f.

13.8.1992 for 14 months. This Tribunal is allowing antelite interest, as Sec. 16 (3) of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 empowers

the Tribunal to award antelite interest provided the same appears to be reasonable. The petitioner claimed interest @ 18% p.a. but this Tribunal is

allowing interest @ 12% p.a. On the wrongfully withheld amount and delayed payment of final bill beyond three months from the date of completion

of the work. This work was completed on 15.3.1992 but the petitioner has claimed interest w.e.f. 13.8.1992 i.e. 3 months after the date of submission

of final bill by him. This reference petition is filed on 8.9.1994, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for antelite interest from 13.8.1992 to 8.9.1994. Since,

the petitioner has claimed interest for 14 months only, we restrict the interest for 14 months which comes to Rs.40,710/- @ 12% p.a.

CLAIM No.11 : CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION FOR DELAY AND BREACHES OF CONTRACT : Rs.2,82,595/-

The petitioner claimed this amount as per schedule 'A' appended with the petition stating that the work delayed for seven months and petitioner

had to continue to pay his establishment during the extra time and loss on profits on account of low productivity and claimed assuming overhead

charges as 10% and profit to another 10% which are the norms accepted by the Govt. and the Arbitration Tribunal and thus, claimed Rs.2,82,595/- for

7 months delay. We have held in para 8.4 that petitioner is entitled for compensation only for 70 days delay from the respondents. The petitioner

submitted income-tax assessment orders Ex. P-70, Ex. P-72 and Ex.P-74 for the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93 during which this

work was in progress alongwith these assessment orders the profit and loss statements are also attached/Ex.P-71, Ex.P-73 and Ex.P-75. As per these

assessments, net profit for these 3 years comes to 6.30%, 3.34% and 1.18% respectively and gross profit comes to 14.65%, 8.86% and 4.03%

respectively. The average of 3 years comes to 3.61% for net profit and 9.18% for gross profit. The net profit is worked out after deducting the

expenditure on salary, travelling expenses, postal, telephone, medical, electricity expenses, rent of accommodation and misc. expenses such as repair

of vehicles, fuel for vehicles, stationary etc. from gross profit. Thus, percentage for loss of profit can be taken as assessed by the income-tax officer

which is 3.61% for 3 years average.

20.

: 70 days say 2.33 months

: Rs.18,340/-

: Rs.52,33,000/-: Rs.43,60,830/-: Rs.1,57,426/-

: 20 months

: Rs.7,871/-

The petitioner has not adduced any evidence in support of expenditure shown in the income-tax return on above referred items. From the income-tax

assessment orders, it seems that the petitioner maintained books of accounts etc. If such records would have been produced before this Tribunal, we

could have known the expenditure incurred on these item which forms part of overhead expenses. In the absence of such evidence on the basis of

only expenditure on these items overhead cannot be granted to the petitioner. In view of Hon'ble M.P. High Court's judgment in M/s. Saluja

Construction Co. Vs. State of M.P. (C.R. No.2136 of 1995) and Smt. Gyan Kaur Vs. State of M.P. (C.R. No.608 of 1989) since the petitioner has

not adduced evidence to prove this claim, he is not entitled to claim any amount under loss of overhead charges but we allow loss of profit due to

prolongation for the period of 70 days for which we have held that the respondents are responsible. At the rate of 3.61% of the prime cost it works

out to Rs.18,340/- as detailed below:-

Tendered cost of work

Prime cost

Profit @ 3.61% of prime cost

Time allowed for completion

Profit for month 1,57,426

Period of delay attributed to the respondents

Loss of profit 7871 x 2.33 = A W A R D

In view of our findings, the petitioner's claim of Rs.3,49,837/- (Rs.33,873/- for reexcavation of abutments A1 and A2, Rs.2,13,150/- for extra payment

of use of Narmada sand, Rs.43,764/- for final bill and refund of security deposit, Rs.40,710/- as antelite interest on the above amounts and Rs.18,340/-

as loss of profit) is hereby allowed with proportionate cost. The respondents are also directed to pay interest @ 12% p.a.on Rs.3,09,127/- from

8.9.1994 till the date of realisation. Counsel fee Rs.4000/-, if certified.â€​

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Tribunal has acted in exercise of excess of its jurisdiction and erred in law in

allowing the claim in part. He further submitted that as per terms of the agreement it was not obligatory for contractor to bring the sand from a

particular quarry of his choice and there was nothing on record to show that local sand was not sufficient standard and as such the contractor who

brought the sand from Narmada river was not entitled for any balance amount.

In respect of Claim No.9, he submitted that the contractor has failed to comply with instructions about return of centering/shuttering material,

royalty clearance from Mining Department and clearance of M.P.E.B. dues etc. In absence of the aforesaid, the amount has been withheld in part.

In respect of Claim No.11, he submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding the amount for loss of profit due to prolongation and delay of work

was not because of the fault of the department but the same has caused due to lack of facilities available with the contractor and prayed that this civil

revision be allowed and claim petition filed by the contractor be dismissed. Per contra, Shri Amit Dube, learned Counsel for the

respondentâ€"contractor has drawn our attention to the findings in respect of Claim Nos.1, 3, 9, 10 and 11, which have been allowed and submitted

that the aforesaid findings is based on the basis of admitted documents of the department and prayed for dismissal of revision application.

We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record of the case.

The Tribunal after appreciating the documentary and oral evidence has allowed the claim Nos.1, 3, 9, 10 and 11. The delay was on the part of the

department. The department after issuance of work order failed to approve the G.A.D. in time. The learned Government Advocate has failed to point

out any perversity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

On due consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, which is based on admissions made by the parties, we are of the view that

while passing the impugned award, neither the learned Tribunal has illegally or with material irregularity, exercised its jurisdiction nor failed to have

exercised its jurisdiction, so vested or has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law and hence, revision filed by the State has no merit and is,

accordingly, dismissed without any orders as to costs.