Holding

An arbitrator who acts beyond the scope of the contract commits a jurisdictional error that voids the award, while awards within contractual limits are only set aside if they contain an error apparent on the face of the award.

Summary

The dispute concerned awards made by an arbitrator (umpire) under a contract for the construction of the Nagarjunasagar Dam. The arbitrator awarded several claims, some of which were not supported by the contract (escalation for napa‑slabs, extra lead for water, flattening of canal slopes) while others (labour escalation, refund of excess hire charges, sand conveyance) were within contractual provisions. The High Court set aside the decree for the unsupported claims but upheld the decree for the supported ones, leading the contractor and the Government to appeal. The Supreme Court held that an arbitrator who exceeds the contractual scope acts without jurisdiction, rendering the award void, whereas awards within the contract are not interferable unless they contain an error apparent on the face of the award. Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to determine jurisdictional excess. Consequently, the contractor's appeals were dismissed and the Government's appeal was allowed only with respect to Claim No. II (labour escalation), which the Court found to be beyond the contract's formula.

Issues considered

The award can be interfered with when the arbitrator exceeds his contractual jurisdiction.
Whether a non‑speaking (silent) award is amenable to judicial review.
Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine the arbitrator's jurisdiction.
Whether an error apparent on the face of the award justifies setting it aside.
Whether the High Court erred in upholding the decree for Claim No. II.

Legislation cited

Arbitration Act, 1948s. 10, s. 14, s. 17, s. 33
Minimum Wages Act, 1948

Subjects

ArbitrationJurisdictionArbitrator's awardExtrinsic evidenceNon‑speaking awardContract interpretationAppellate reviewArbitration Act 1948

Judgment

A ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING CO.
v.
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.
-
JULY 15, 1991

B [T. KOCHU THOMMEN AND R.M. SAHA!, JJ.]

Arbitration Act, 1948: Sections 10, 14, 17, 33-Arbitrator-
Jurisdiction-dispute of-Not within the award-To be decided outside
the award-Ambiguity of such award-To be resolved by admitting
extrinsic evidence-Jurisdiction cannot be widened by Arbitrator-He
is bound by the recital in the contract-Conscious disregard of law or
c provisions of contract-Whether amounts to ma/a fide action and
vitiates the award.

Some disputes arose between the Respondent State and the Con-
tractor in respect of the Cement concrete lining under an agreement in
D connection with the construction of Nagarjunasagar Dam. Arbitrator
Umpire was appointed and the parties med their pleading and docu-
ments before him. There were 15 claims apart from the general claim for
cost and interest. The award made by the Umpire was med before the
Civil Court. The Civil Court made the award a rule of Court and passed
a decree in terms of the award together with interest at 12% per annum
E from the date of the decree.

On appeal, the High court set aside the decree in respect of three
claims on the ground that the claims were not supported hy the agree-
ment between the parties and that the arbitrator bad gone beyond the
contract in awarding the claims, and confirmed the decree in respect of
F three other claims. '

Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, both the Contractor
and the State Government preferred appeals by special leave.

On behalf of the Contractor it was contended that since the
G Umpire made a non-speaking award and did not incorporate any docu-
ment as part of the award except his reference to the contract, law did
not permit interference by the Court with the award, and that the High
Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with a non-speaking
award.

H On behalf of the State Government it was contended that notwith-

924
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. 925

standing the brevity of his reasoning, the arbitrator had given a speak-
A
ing award, but with errors of Jaw and fact apparent on the face of it;
and that he acted contrary to the contract, thereby exceeding his
jurisdiction.

Dismissing the appeal of the Contractbr and partly allowing the
appeal of the State Government, this Court, B

HELD: I. The arbitrator cannot act arbitrarily, irrationally
capriciously or independently of the contract. His sole function is to
arbitrate in terms of the contract. He has no power apart from what the
parties have given him under the contract. If he has travelled outside
the bo.~mds of the contract, he has acted without jurisdiction. But if he
has remained inside the parameters of the contraet and has construed
c
the provisions of the contract, his award cannot be interfered with
unless he has given reasons for the award disclosing an error apparent
on the face of it. ·[938A-B]

2. An arbitrator who acts in manifest disregard of the contract D
acts without jurisdiction. His authority is derived from the contract and
is governed by the Arbitration Act which embodies principles derived
from a specialised branch of the law of agency. He commits miscondnct
if by his award he decides matters excluded by the agreement. A
deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only manifest dis-
regard of his authority or a misconduct on his part, but it may taut- E
amount to a ma/a fide action. A conscious disregard of the law or the
provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority
J vitiates the award. [938C-E]

Mustill & Boyd's Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, p. 64;
Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume II, 4th Edn., para 622, referred F
to ..

3. A dispute as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not a dispute
within the award, but one which has to be decided outside the award.
An Umpire or arbitrator cannot widen his jurisdiction by deciding a
question not referred to him by the parties or by deciding a question G
otherwise than in accordance with the contract. He cannot say that he
does not care what the contract says. He is bound by it. It must bear his
decision. He cannot travel outside its bounds. If he exceeded his juris-
diction by doing so, his award would be liable to be set aside. [938E-F]

Attorney General for Manitoba v. Kelly & Others, [1922] 1 AC H
268, referred to.
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 2 S.C.R.

4.1. Evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award
A
would he admissible to decide whether the arbitrator travelled outside
the bounds of the contract and thus exceeded his jurisdiction. In order
to see what the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is, it is open to the Court to '"
see what dispute was submitted to him. If that is not clear from the
award, it is open to the Court to have recourse to outside sources. The
B Court can look at the affidavits and pleadings of parties; the Court can
look at the agreement itself. [939A-B]

Bunge & Co. v. Dewar & Webb, [1921) 8 LI. L.Rep. 436 (K.B.),
referred to.

4.2. If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the
c contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders
outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he
commits a jurisdictional error. Such error goiog to his jurisdiction can
be established by looking into material outside the award. Extrinsic
evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is not something
D which arises under or in relation to the contract or dependent on the
construction of the contract or to be determined within the award. The
dispute as to jurisdiction is a matter which is outside the award or
outside whatever may be said about it in the award. The ambiguity of
the award can, in such cases, be resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence.
The nature of the dispute is something which has to be determined outside
E and independent of what appears in the award. Such jurisdictional error
needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the award. [939C-F)

M/s. Alopi Parshad & Sons Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1960) 2
SCR 793; Union of India v. Kishori Lal, AIR 1959 SC 1362; Renusagar
Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company, [1984) 4 SCC 679;
F Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao, AIR 1965 SC 214; Gobardhan Das v.
Lachhmi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 689 and Thawardas v. Union of India,
AIR 1955 SC 468, relied on.

Bunge & Co. v. Dewar & Webb, [1921) 8 LI. L. Rep. 436 (K.B.);
Christopher Brown Ltd. v. Genossenschaft Oesterreichischer, [1954) 1
G QB 8; Rex v. fulham, [1951] 2 K.B. l; Falkingham v. Victorian Rail"
ways Commission, [1900] A.C. 452; Rex v. All Saints, Southampton,
[1828] 7 B. & C. 785; Laing, Son & Co. Ltd. v. Eastcheap Dried Fruit
Co., [1961] 1 LI. L.Rep. 142, 145 (Q.B.); Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd.
v. National Bank of Pakistan, [1978] 2 LI. L.Rep. 223 (C.A.); Heyman
v. Darwins Ltd., [1942] A.C. 356; Omanhene v. Chief Obeng, AIR
H 1934 P.C. 185; F.R. Absalom Ltd. v. Great Western (London) Garden
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. 927

Village Society, Limited, [1933] AC 592 (HL) and M. Golodetz v.
A
Schrier & Anr., [1947] SOLI. L.Rep. 647, referred to.

5. In the instant case, the umpire decided matters strikingly out-
side his jurisdiction. He outstepped the confines of the contract. He
wandered far outside the designated area. He diagressed far away from
the allotted task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or B
misunderstanding tbe contract, but by acting in excess of what was agreed.
It was an error going to the root of his jnrisdiction because he asked
himself the wrong question, disregarded the contract and awarded in
excess of his authority. In many respects, the award flew in the face of
provisions of the contract to the contrary. The umpire acted nnreason-
ably, irrationally and capriciously in ignoring the limits and the clear
provisions of the contract. In awarding claims which are totally
c
opposed to the provisions of the contract to which he made specific
reference in allowing them, he has misdirected and misconducted him·
self by manifestly disregarding the limits of his jurisdiction and the
bounds of the contract from which he derived his authority thereby
acting ultra fines compromissi. [940A·D] D

M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The managing
Director, J. and K. Handicrafts v. Mis. Good Luck Carpets, AIR 1990
SC 864 and State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. R. V. Rayanim, AIR
1990 SC 626, relied on.
E
Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commission, [1969] 2
AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow School, [1979]
1 Q.B. 56 and Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain, [1952] 2 Q.B.
329, referred to.

Mustil/ & Boyd's Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, p. 641 F
and Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn., Vol. 2, para 622, referred
to.

6.1. In the instant case, the contract did not postulate-in fact it
prohibited-payment of any escalation under Claim No. III for napa-
slabs or Claim No. VI for extra lead of water or Claim No. IX for G
flattening of canal slopes or Claim No. II for escalation in labour
charges otherwiSe than in terms of the formnla prescribed by the con-
tract. The umpire travelled totally outside the permissible territory and
thus exceeded his jurisdiction in making the award under those claims.
This is an error going to the root of his jurisdiction. As such, the High
Court was right in holding that the arbitrator acted ontside the contract H
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A in awarding the abovesaid claims. However, the High Court went
worng in confirming the decree in respect of Claim No. II relating to
escalation in labour charges since a specific formula had been pres-
cribed under Item 35, and the function of the umpire was to make an
award in accordance with the formula; he had no jurisdiction to alter
the same. [937C-D; 936F)
B
Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth & Ors. v. Chintaman rao Balaji &
Ors., AIR 1965 SC 214, relied on.

6.2. Claim No. IV relating to 'Refund of Excess hire charges of
machinery and payment towards losses suffered as a result of poor
C performance of department machinery and also direction for the
future' was rightly allowed by the arbitrator and his decision was
rightly upheld by the High Court. The Government was, in terms of the
contract, bound to compensate the contractor for the excess higher
charges paid as a result of the poor performance of the machinery
supplied by the Government. [937E-F)
D
6.3. As regards Claim No. VI1(4) relating to 'Sand Conveyance'
the arbitrator was right in stating that the diesel oil requirement should
be taken as 0.35 lit for item No. 5 of statement (A) at page 59 of
Agreement as indicated in the original tender and not as 0.035 and
price adjustment made accordingly. The High Court rightly upheld this
E claim. [937G-H; 938A)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 338-
339 of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.12.85 of the Hyderabad
High Court in OMA No. 456 of 1984 and CRP No. 2743 of 1984.
F
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 2692-930F 199 !.
K.R. Choudhary for the Appellant.
K. Madhava Reddy, G. Prabhakar, T.V.S.N. Chari (N.P.) for
G
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THOMMEN. J. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7071-72 of
1986.
H These appeals are brought against the common judgment of the
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. ITHOMMEN, J.] 929

Andhra Pradesh High Court in O.M.A. No. 456 of 1984 and C.R.P.
A
No. 2743 of 1984. The High Court sei aside in part the common judg-
ment of the 1st Additional Chief Judge, Civil Court at Hyderabad, in
Original Suit No. 174 of 1983 and O.P. No. 49 of 1983 whereby he
made the award of the umpire (hereinafter referred to as the 'umpire'
or 'arbitrator') a rule of court and passed a decree in terms of the
award together with interest on the principal amount awarded at the B
rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the decree. The High
Court set aside the decree in respect of Claim Nos. III, VI and IX and
affirmed the decree for the other claims. The main appeal Nos. 338 &
339 of 1991 arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 1573 & 1574 of 1986 are by
the Associated Engineering Co. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Con-
tractor'). It challenges the judgment of the High Court setting aside
the decree of the Civil Court in respect of Claim Nos. III, VI and IX.
c
The other appeals arising from S.L.P. (C) Nos. 7071 & 7072 of 1986 are
by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and they are against the judg-
ment of the High Court confirming the decree of the Civil Court in
respect of Claim Nos. II, IV and VII(4).
D
The High Court set aside Claim Nos. III, VI and IX on the
ground that those claims were not supported by the agreement bet-
ween parties and that the arbitrator travelled outside the contract in
awarding those claims. While that portion of the judgment of the High
Court is supported by the Government, the Contractor submits that
the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering_ with a non- E
speaking award. The Government challenges the judgment of the
High Court in so far as it affirmed the findings of the Civil Court in
respect of Claim Nos. II, IV and VII( 4) on the ground that the
arbitrator awarded those claims totally unsupported by the contract.

Mr. A.B. Dewan, appearing for the Contractor, submits that the F
umpire made a ·non-speaking award. He did not incorporate any docu-
ment as a part of the award, notwithstanding his reference to the
contract. In the circumstances, counsel submits, the law does not
permit interference by the Court with such an award.

Mr. K. Madhava Reddy, appearing for the Government, on the G
other hand, submits that the umpire made a speaking award. with
reference to the claims and he gave reasons for awarding those claims.
It is true, counsel says, that the umpire made only brief reference to
the provisions of the contract and his reasons for making the award.
But notwithstanding the brevity of his reasoning, he has spoken suffi-
ciently clearly as a result of which errors of law and fact have become H
930 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

apparent on the face of the award disclosing that the umpire acted
A
contrary to, and unsupported by, coatract, thereby exceeding his
jurisdiction. He says that the umpire has referred to the contract not
merely for the purpose of reciting or narrating his authority to hear the
matter and resolve the dispute, but for incorporating it as a part of the
award. In doing so, he exceeded the contract, not merely by misin-
B terpreting it, but by travelling totally outside it, and by making an
award without regard to and independent of the contract. A number of
decision have been cited on either side in support of the respective
contentions.

The award was made in respect of disputes which arose between
the Government and the Contractor for the cement concrete lining
c under Agreement dated 20.1.1981 (as supplemented subsequently) in
connection with the construction of Nagarjunasagar Dam. The parties
filed their pleadings and documents before the arbitrator/umpire.
There were 15 claims apart from the general claim for cost and
interest. As stated earlier, we are concerned only with Claim Nos. III,
D VI and IX which are claims awarded by the umpire and decreed by the
Civil Court, but set aside by the High Court, and with Claim Nos. II,
IV and VII( 4) which were awarded by the umpire and decreed by the
Civil Court as well as by the High Court. The first set of claims respec-
tively, are: 'Escalation on Napa Slabs'; 'Payment of Extra Lead for
water'; and, 'Extra Expenditure incurred due to flattening of canal
E slopes and consequent reduction in top width of banks used as r~ad
way'. The other set of claims relate respectively to 'Labour Escala-
tion'; 'Refund of excess Hire Charges of Machinery'; and, 'Sand
conveyance'.

The umpire after reciting the background of the dispute which
F led to his entering upon reference on 16.12.82 to decide the dispute
and the relevant agreement between the parties deals with the claims
seriatim. As regards Claim No. III, he says:

"I hereby declare and award and direct the respondent to
compensate the claimants towards escalation in the cost of
G napaslabs calculated at Rs.4.25 (Rupees four and paise
twenty five) per Sq. Met. of nap a slab lining, under item 11
of schedule A of the agreement for the entire work and
make payments accordingly".

The main criticism levelled by the Government against this
H award is that there was no provision in the contract for escalation of
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. ITHOMMEN, J.] 931

the cost or price of napa-slabs. The escalation provision in the contract
A
related to labour, diesel oil, tyres and tubes, as provided in Item 35
thereof. There was no escalation provision in the contract as far as
napa-slabs were concerned. The price for these slabs had been
determined in the contract at Rs.4.25 Per Sq. Met. and there was no
provision for increase or decrease of that price. Both the parties to the
contract were bound by that price and the arbitrator, therefore, had no B
jurisdiction to award any escalation in the price of napa-slabs. In the
absence of any provision in the contract, the arbitrator had no jurisdic-
tion to make an award for escalation. This contention of the Govern-
ment was accepted by the High Court.

Mr. Dewan, appearing for the Contractor, is not in a position to
refer to any provision of the contract allowing escalation for napa-
c
slabs. All that he is in a position to refer to is Item 35 of the contract
which refers to price adjustment for increase or decrease in the cost.
That item, as stated earlier, refers to various matters such as, diesel
oil, labour, etc., but not to napa-slabs. On the other hand, at the end
of that item, it is specifically stated 'no claims for price adjustment D
other than those provided herein, shall be entertained'. Furthermore,
it is specifically provided in the contract 'the contractor shall have to
make his own arrangements to obtain the napa-slabs as per standard
specifications. The Department does not accept any responsibility
either in handing over the quarries or procuring the napa-slabs or any
other facilities. The contractor will not be entitled for any extra rate E
due to change in selection of quarries as above'. There is thus a specific
prohibition against price adjustment or award for escalated cost in
respect of any matter falling outside Item 35.

Mr. Dewan, however, submits that being a non-speaking award,
the Court cannot examine the reasons. Mr. Madhava Reddy, appearing F
for the Government, submits that the award is not silent on the point.
It speaks eloquently, though briefly. It is not merely in the recital or
narrative portion of the award that the agreement is referred to, but in
making the award under Claim No. III the agreement is specifically
incorporated by directing payment for escalation on napa-slabs under
Item 11 of Schedule A of the Agreement at the rate of Rs.4.25. The G
·agreement is thus bodily incorporated into the award thereby disclos-
ing an error apparent on its face and the total lack ot"the arbitrator's
juristiction by reason of his going totally outside and opposed to the
contract. This, counsel says, is revealed not by a construction of the
contractual provisions, but by merely looking at the matters covered
by the contract. H
932 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A Claim No. VI-Payment of Extra Lead for water.

This is what the arbitrator says:

"I hereby declare and award and direct the Respondent to
pay extra towards additional lead for water i.e. 3 K.Ms.
B over the specified lead of 2 K.Ms. in the agreement for
items 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11 of Schedule A".

As regards this claim, Mr. Dewan reiterates his contention that the
award is silent as to the reasons and, therefore, the Court should not
interfere. Mr. Madhava Reddy on the other hand submits that the
C award speaks as to the reasons for allowing the claim for extra amount
towards additional lead for water i.e. for 3 K.Ms. over and above the
specified lead of 2 K.Ms. But counsel says, the agreement provides for
no payment at all for any lead and much less for any additional lead.
He refers to the specific provison of the agreement regarding water.
He says that the Contractor had to make its own arrangements for
D supply of water at work site for all purposes including quarry. There is
no provision in the contract for making any payment to the Contractor
for the water brought by it to the site. In the absence of any such
provision, counsel says, it is preposterous that the arbitrator should
have awarded extra amount for additional lead for water. The contract
specifically stated that it was .the responsibility of the Contractor to
E make its on arrangements for the supply of water. The Government
gave no assurance to the Contractor regarding the availability of water
or the prices payable therefor. The umpire, therefore, had no jurisdic-
tion to allow Claim No. VI. The High Court accepting the contention
of the State reversed the Civil Court's decree as regards that claim and
held" ....... In view of unequivocal agreement that the contractor
F should make his own arrangements for supply of water for the purpose
of curing, the award of compensation is outside the purview of the
agreement and is vitiated".

Claim No. IX-Extra expenditure incurred due to flatten-
ing of canal slopes and consequent reduction in top width
G of banks used as roadway.

Referring to this claim, this is what the award says:

"I hereby declare and award and direct the respondent to
pay the claimant for 50% of the work done on the napa slab
H lining on the left side slope of Canal at the extra rate of
Rs.4.00 per Sq. Met. of lining work".
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. [THOMMEN, J.] 933

Rejecting the contentions of the Contractor and accepting those
A
of the Government, the High Court held that the contract did not
provide for any payment whatever for the maintenance of canal slopes
and consequent deduction in top width of banks used as roadway. The
High Court found that it was the responsibility of the Contractor to
repair the banks and the contract contained no provision for payment
of any amount towards the decrease in the width or otherwise. The B
High Court says ' .... the acceptance of claim on this score is beyond
the purview of the agreement-and as such vitiated'.

While counsel for the Contractor repeats his contentions regard-
ing the award being silent as to reasons, Mr. Madhava Reddy submits
that the contract provides for no payment whatever under Claim No.
IX. On the other hand, it specifically states- c

"8(A) SITE FACILITIES-

Haul roads from batching plant site to the work site in
the first instance will be formed by the Department as per D
site surveys per each batching plant site. These haul roads
are fair weather roads only with hard passages at stream
crossings. Formation of haul roads within the batching
plant area, maintenance of all haul roads including those
formed by the Department shall be the responsibility of the
contractors. Existing roads and roads under the control of E
N.S. Project can be made use of by the Contractor. Any
other haul roads required by the Contractor and not
specified in plan shall be carried out by the Contractor at
his cost.

8.(A) 1. WIDENING OF BANKS F

The canal banks will be widened to 5 meters and 3
meters width respectively by the Department for right and
left banks to facilitate transport of materials. The contractor
however has to maintain the haul roads".
G
In the absence of any provision to pay for extra expenditure and
in the light of the specific provision placing the sole responsibility for
the maintenance of the haul roads on the Contractor, the arbitrator
had no jurisdiction to award 50% at extra rate of Rs.4 per Sq. Meter.
The contract contains no provision for payment of any amount outside
what is strictly specified under the clause. In the circumstances, Mr. H
934 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

Madhava Reddy says, the High Court was perfectly justified in coming
A
to the conclusion, which it did, as regards the arbitrator acting outside
his jurisdiction.

We shall now deal with the other set of claims, namely, Claim
Nos. II, IV and VII(4) which had been awarded and decreed by both
B the courts below.

The arbitrator deals with Claim No. II as follows:

"The claim is admitted.

li hereby declare and award and direct the Respondents
c that due to the statutory revision of Minimum rates of
wages payable to various categories of workers, the clai-
mant is to be paid compensation as per the following
formula:

D Pl (WSI-WSO)O. lO+ (WSSI ::. WSSO)O. lO - (WUSl-WUSO) 0.8
V2-··- x R
JOO WSO wsso wuso
Where Vs- Compensation payable due to statutory increase in
Min. Wagss of labour notified by the Government
of A.P. after 22.10.1980 under the Min. Wages
E Act., 1948.

P-1. Percentage Labour component of each item of
Work as per Appendix 9 at page 139 of Agreement.

R- Value of work done under each item of work
F during the period under review.

WSO- 11.15 (Daily Minimum wage in force on the date
of Tender for skilled labour).

WSSO- 8.50 (Daily Minimum wage in force on the date of
G Tender for semiskilled labour).

WUSO- 5 .65 (Daily Minimum wage in force on the date of
Tender for unskilled labour). ·

WSI- Revised daily Min. wage as fixed by Govt. of A.P.
H for skilled labour applicable for the period under
review.
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. [THOMMEN, J.I 935

WSSI- Revised daily Min. wage as fixed by Govt. of A.P.
A
for semiskilled labour applicable for the period
under review.
'f.
WUSI- Revised daily Min. Wages as fixed by Government
of A.P. for unskilled labour applicable for the
period under review. B

The above compensation is payable to the claimant
for the work done after 23.12.80, the date of publication of
G.O. No. 835 dated 18. U.80, till the completion of the
work".

It is not seriously disputed that the observation "The claim is c
admitted" is only a reference to the arbitrator's decision to allow the
claim and not as a concession or admission on the part of the Govern-
ment. In fact from the pleadings it is quite clear that the Government
had opposed every claim and there was no concession on its part.
D
Claim No. II has been, as seen above, elaborately dealt with by
the arbitrator. On account of the statutory revision of minimum rates
of wages payable to various categories of workers, the arbitrator made
the award in respect of labour escalation. Escalation under this item is
in fact, as stated above, provided for under the contract, but in terms
thereof. The grievance of the Government is not because the umpire E
awarded escalation for labour, but because he allowed escalation
otherwise than as provided under the contract. The contract under
Item 35 provides-

'Increase or decrease in the cost due to labour shall be
calculated quarterly in accordance with the following F
formula:

Vl = 0.75 Pl x R (i-i)
100 10

Vl increase or decrease in the cost of work during . G
the q uaiter under consideration due to changes
in rates for labour.

R the value of the work done in Rupees during the
quarter under consideration.
H
936 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A
I = the average consumer price index for industrial
workers (wholesale prices) for the quarter in
which tenders were opended (as published in
Nalgonda District by the Director of Bureau of
Economics and Statistics, Andhra Pradesh).

B Pl = Percentage oflabour components (specified in
schedule in appendix-9 of the item).

the average consumer price index for industrial
workers (wholesale prices) for the quarter under
consideration.
c Price adjustment clause shall be applicable
'only for the work that is carried out within the
stipulated time or extensions thereof as are not
attributable to the contractor. No claims for
price adjustment other than those provided
D herein, shall be entertained".

The contention of the Government is that the two formulae are
totally different from each other as a result of which the arbitrator
awarded very much more than what is warranted under the agreed
f01:.mula. Mr. Madhava Red.dy submits that it is true that the Contractor
E was bound to pay minimum wages according to the relevant statutory
provisions. In fact the contract contains a provision making it neces-
sary for the Contractor to conform to all laws, regulations, bye-laws,
ordinances, regulations, etc. But the fact that the Contractor neces-
sarily had to pay enhanced rates of wages did not entitle it to claim any
amount from the Government in excess of what had been strictly pro-
F vided under the contract. A speeifi'c formula had been prescribed
under Item 35, as seen above, and the function of the umpire was to
make an award in accordance with that formula. He had no jurisdic-
tion to alter the formula, which he has done, as seen from the award.

It is not disputed on behalf of the Contractor that the formula
G followed by the arbitrator, as seen from the award under Claim No. II, ~
is different from the formula prescribed under the contract. But Mr.
K.R. Chowdhury, one of the counsel appearing for the Contractor,
points out that the contract provided for payment of all wages accord-
ing to the current rates and, therefore, the arbitrator was well within
his jurisdiction to make an award by adopting a formula in keeping
H with the enhanced rates of wages, and the High Court, he contends,
ASSOCIATED ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. [THOMMEN, J.) 937

rightly decreed the amounts under that claim in terms of the award.
A
., We shall deal with Claim Nos. IV and VII(4) separately. But as
regards Claim Nos. III, VI and IX, we are of the view that the High
Court was right in stating that the arbitrator acted outside the contract
in awarding those claims. For the very same reason we are of the view
that the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion, which it 13
did, regarding Claim No. II. We say so because there is no justification
whatsoever for the arbitrator to act outside the contract.
,.. These four claims are not payable under the contract. The con-
tract does not postulate-in fact it prohibits payment of any escalation
under Claim No. III for napa-slabs or Claim No. VI for extra lead of
water or Claim No. IX for flattening of canal slopes or Claim No. II for c
escalation in labour charges otherwise than in terms of the formula
prescribed by the contract. This conclusion is reached not by construe-
lion of the contract but by merely looking at the contract. The umpire
travelled totally outside the permissible territory and thus exceeded his
jurisdiction in making the award under those claims. This is an error D
going to the root of his jurisdiction: See Jivarajbhai Ujamshi Sheth &
Ors. v. Chintamanrao Balaji & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 214. We are in
complete agreement with Mr. Madhava Reddy's submissions on the
... point.

As regards Claim Nos. IV and VII( 4), we see no merit in Mr. E
Madhava Reddy's contentions. Claim No. IV relates to 'Refund of
excess hire charges of machinery and payment towards !assess suffered
as a result of poor performance of department machinery and also
direction for the future'. This claim, in our view, was rightly allowed
by the arbitrator and his decision was rightly upheld by the High
Court. The Government was, in terms of the contract, bound to com- F
pensate the Contractor for the excess higher charges paid as a result of
the poor performance of the machinery supplied by the Government.

Claim No. VII(4) is as regards 'Sand Conveyance'. The arbi-
;. trator says-
G
''The diesel oil requirement shall be taken as 0.35 lit for
item No. 5 of statement (A) at page 59 of Agreement as
indicated in the original tender and not as 0.035 and price
adjustment made accordingly".

The arbitrator was, in our view, right in so stating and the High Court, H
938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 2 S.C.R.

A in our view, rightly upheld this claim.

The arbitrator cannot act arbitrarily, irrationally, capriciously or ...
independently of the contract. His sole function is to arbitrate in terms
of the contract. He has no power apart from what the parties have
given him under the contract. If he has travelled outside the bounds of
B
the contract, he has acted without jurisdiction. But if he has remained
. inside the parameters of the contract and has construed the provisions
of the contract; his award cannot be interferred with unless he has
given reasons for the award disclosing an error apparent on the face of
it.

C An arbitrator who acts in manifest disregard of the contract acts
without jurisdiction. His authority is derived from the contract and is
governed by the Arbitration Act which embodies principles derived
from a specialised branch of the law of agency (see Mustill & Boyd's
Commercial Arbitration, Second Edition, p. 641). He commits miscon-
D duct if by his award he decides matters excluded by the agreement (see
Halsbury's Laws of England, Volume II, Fourth Edition, Para 622). A
deliberate departure from contract amounts to not only manifest disre-
gard of his authority or a misconduct on his part, but it may tant-
amount to a mala fide action. A conscious disregard of the law or the
provisions of the contract from which he has derived his authority "'
vitiates the award.
E
A dispute as to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not a dispute
within the award, but one which has to be decided outside the award.
An umpire or arbitrator cannot widen his jurisdiction by deciding a
question not referred to him by the parties or by deciding a question
otherwise than in accordance with the contract. He cannot say that he
F
does not care what the contract says. He is bound by it. It must bear his
decision. He cannot travel outside its bounds. If he exceeded his
jurisdiction by so doing, his award would be liable to be set aside. As
stated by Lord Parmoor:

" ...... It would be impossible to allow an umpire to arro-
G
gate to himself jurisdiction over a question which on the
true construction of the submission was not referred to
him. An umpire cannot widen the area of his jurisdiction by
holding, contrary to the fact, that the matter which he
affects to decide is within the submission of the parties
,,
H
ASSOCIAIBD ENGG. v. GOVT. OF A.P. ITHOMMEN, J.) 939

Attorney-General for Manitoba v. Kelly & Others,
A
[ 1922] 1 AC 268, 276. .

Evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award would be
admissible to decide whether the arbitrator travelled outside the
bounds of the contract and thus exceeded his jurisdiction. In order to
see what the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is, it is open to tbe Court to B
see what dispute was submitted to him. If that is not clear from the
award, it is open to the Court to have recourse to outside sources. The
Court can look at the affidavits and pleadings of parties; the Court can
look at the agreement itself. Bunge & Co. v. Dewar & Webb, [1921] 8
LL L.Rep. 436 (K.B.).

If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the
c
contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders
outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he
commits a jurisdictional error. Such error going to his jurisdiction can
he established by looking into material outside the award. Extrinsic
evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is not some- D
-< thing which arises under or in relation to the contract or dependent on
the construction of the contract or to be determined within the award.
The dispute as to jurisdiction is a matter which is outside the award or
outside whatever may be said about it in the award. The ambiguity of
the award can, in such cases, be resolved by admitting extrinsic evi-
dence. The rationale of this rule is that the nature of the dispute is E
something which has to be determined outside and independent of
what appears in the award. Such jurisdictional error needs to be
proved by evidence extrinsic to the award. See M/s. Alopi Parshad &
Sons. Ltd. v. The Union of India, [1960] 2 SCR 793; Bunge & Co. v.
Dewar & Webb., [1921] 8 Ll. L. Rep. 436 (K.B.); Christopher Brown
L'd. v. Genossenscha/t Oesterreichischer, [1954] 1 QB 8; Rex v. F
Fulham, [1951] 2 K.B. 1; Falkingham v. Victorian Railways Commis-
sion, [1900] A.C. 452; Rex v. All Saints, Southampton, [1828] 7 B. &
C. 785; Laing. Son & Co. Ltd. v. Eastcheap Dried Fruit Co., [961] 1
Ll. L. Rep. 142, 145 (Q.B.); Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd. v. National
Bank of Pakistan, [1978] 2 Ll. L. Rep. 223 (C.A.); Heyman v. Darw-
ing Ld., [1942] A.C. 356; Union of India v. kishorilal, AIR 1959 SC G
1362; Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Company, [1984]
4 SCC 679; Jivarajbhai v. Chintamanrao, AIR 1965 SC 214; Gobar-
dhan Das v. Lachhmi Ram, AIR 1954 SC 689, 692; Thawardas v.
Union of India., AIR 1955 SC 468; Omanhene v. Chief Obeng, AIR
1934 P.C. 185, 188; F.R. Absalom. Ltd. v. Great Western London
Garden Village Society. Limited, [1933] AC 592 (HL) and M. Golodetz H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l1991J 2 S.C.R.

A v. Schrier&Anr., [1947] 80Ll. L. Rep. 647.

In the instant case, the umpire decided matters strikingly outside
his jurisdiction. He. outstepped the confines of the contract. He
wandered far outside the designated area. He diagressed far away
B
from the allotted task. His error arose not by misreading or miscon-
struing or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of
•
what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction
because he asked himself the wrong question, disregarded the contract
and awarded in excess of his authority. In many respects, the award
flew in the face of provisions of the contract to the contrary. See the
principles stated in Anisminic Ltd. v. Foreign Compensation Commis-
c sion., (1969] 2 AC 147; Pearlman v. Keepers and Governors of Harrow
School, (1979] 1 Q.B. 56; Lee v. Showmen's Guild of Great Britain,
[ 1952] 2 Q.B. 329; M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapur, AIR 1972 SC 2379; The
Managing Director. J. and K. Handicrafts v. MJs. Good Luck Carpets,
AIR 1990 SC 864 and State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. v. R. V.
Rayanim, AIR 1990 SC 626. See also Mustill & Boyd's Commercial
D Arbitration, Second Edition; Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth
Edition, Vol. 2.

The umpire, in our view, acted unreasonably, irrationally and
capriciously in ignoring the limits and the clear provisions of the con-
tract. In awarding claims which are totally opposed to the provisions of
E the contract to which he made specific reference in allowing them, he
has misdirected and misconducted himself by manifestly disregarding
the limits of his jurisdiction and the bounds of the contract from which
he derived his authority thereby acting ultra fines compromissi.

In the ·circumstances, we affirm the judgment of the High Court
F under appeals except in respect of Claim No. II. Accordingly, the ap-
peals of the contractor are dismissed; and, the appeals of the Govern-
ment are allowed in respect of claim No. II. We do not, however,
make any order as to costs.

G.N. I
Appeals dismissed.