As per case facts, the Petitioner, a security services firm, was awarded a contract by the Respondent for manpower services. The Respondent failed to release pending payments and enhanced minimum ... wages, forcing the Petitioner to bear these costs. After unsuccessful representations, the Petitioner invoked arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed claims for pending bills and incremental wages but disallowed the claim for Interest and Cost without clear reasoning. The Petitioner appealed this decision. The question arose whether an unreasoned or unintelligible Arbitral Award, specifically regarding interest and costs, conflicts with the public policy of India and Section 31(3) of the Act, thereby warranting interference and partial setting aside. Finally, the High Court, citing Supreme Court precedents, found the Arbitrator's reasoning for denying interest and cost cryptic and unintelligible, directly contravening the Act's mandate for reasoned awards. The Court deemed this portion severable, set it aside, and remanded the matter to the Arbitral Tribunal for fresh consideration of the claim for Interest and Cost.