had attained finality and as such the question of challenging the jurisdiction before the Arbitral Tribunal or at this stage does not arise. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to the discussion of the Issue Nos.1, 7 & 8 by the learned Arbitrator that it has been a categorical finding by the learned Arbitrator to the effect that the appellant was responsible for the breach of the contract as well as for the delay in execution of the work and the learned Arbitrator had categorically held that the claimant was not responsible and under such circumstances, the learned Arbitrator while deciding the Issue Nos.7 & 8 categorically held that the appellant was not entitled to claim any compensation from the claimants/respondents herein. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of J.E. Engineers Private Limited vs. Union of India and Another , reported in (2011) 5 SCC 758 , the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the contentions so advanced by the appellant have been duly answered by the Supreme Court in the said judgment holding inter-alia that once the Arbitrator comes to a finding that the employee/counter claimant was responsible for the breach of the agreement as well as for the delay in the execution of the work, the question of awarding any counterclaim in their favour does not arise.
