user16626: In a amateur game, black offered a handshake and white shook hands with him and neither spoke any word and the game ended. Later they had a dispute whether the game is a draw or a win for white. Black claimed that his offering of a handshake was a draw offer and when white shook hands, white accepted his draw offer. White claimed that black's offering of a handshake was a resignation.
It is an amateur game and there is no game record. So what should the arbiter do in this situation? Here are a few possibilities:

Claim this game as a draw.
Claim this game as win for white.
Try recovering the position when the game ended and ask them to keep playing from there. (This option may not be feasible as without a game record, they may not agree with the position)
Order a rematch.

Edit: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour". 

user21681: Based on what @Annatar said, it may be interesting to know what was the situation on the board :
1 - Was white obviously winning ?
2 - Was there an obvious draw, such as a pat a few moves down the line ?
If 1, Black is either inexperienced or tried something fishy by asking for a draw while losing. So White wins.
If 2, then maybe it was reasonable of Black to ask for what was, to him, obvious. So ruling a draw is reasonable.
It would be weird if it's neither of those situations (obvious draw or obvious loss). You wouldn't offer a draw in a situation where nothing is resolved.

user3445: USCF and FIDE rules state that a draw should be made after the move but before hitting the clock. If those conditions have not been met, then the handshake could considered a resignation offer.
https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/

user19877: Based on the comments to the question above, there is no offical ruling body governing the rules, therefore, the guy running the tournament is the final authority. It is really up to his judgment. 
If I were he, and there were time, I would try to see if we could reestablish the position, and finish from there. If not, I would declare a draw. I would not order a rematch unless there was some other great reason that was not listed above.
Lastly, I would make sure that I taught them the rules.

user13433: From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation.
The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it:
You shake hands after the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end is "set in stone".
If you extend your hand without a concrete reason on the board for an end of the game (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition etc.), you silently imply the other possible reason: That you just resigned, which is possible unilaterally. The "silently" part is the reason why this is done this way: It's less disturbing for neighbouring boards than saying "I resign" or laying down your king (in many piece sets, you can't make sure that it doesn't start rolling around). 
If you instead wanted to only offer a draw, the game would not have ended (yet), as your opponent still has to accept. Thus, extending your hand makes no sense yet. But conversely, if you (properly by words) offer a draw, now your opponent may offer a silent handshake! Because once they (silently) agree to your draw offer, the game is over, and they can indicate this by stretching out their hand. 
Of course, this "implied" way of ending games, even if it is more polite to other ongoing games, has the drawback that lead to the question here: It requires that both players are on the same page of what is actually implied. Even more problematic than the question are for example cases where one side saw a 3-fold repetition and implied "draw", but the other didn't see the repetition and assumed "resignation". Probably not the case here, it sounded like neither mentioned anything else but resignation or free draw offer. 

Edit: Because the question came up why the players would act this way, there are some thinkable scenarios:

Black was dishonest. He deliberately acted ambiguously to trick White (in the hope that the arbiter would be convinced of his story that he only wanted to offer a draw). (correct result: 1-0)
Black was very inexperienced. Sometimes, weaker and especially younger players have the habit of always offering a draw before they resign (sometimes no matter how lost their position is), in the vague hope that the opponent is nice or doesn't see how winning they are. The handshake genuinely was intended to be a draw offer that White misinterpreted. (correct result: 1-0 with a degree of uncertainty. In my opinion, White should not be punished for acting in good faith, while Black with certainty did not offer a draw the correct way and thus has the weaker case).
It was actually White who was dishonest. We don't know the position. Maybe it wasn't actually all that winning and White exploited Black's naivete of not explicitly offering a draw by words. (correct result: 1/2-1/2)

All these cases are mostly applicable to amateur tournaments. Top (and even advanced) players know that they just look like fools if they offer draws in lost positions or try to cheat that way. 
To know which of these cases applies, we need more information (for example, what was each player's rough evaluation of the final position, how reasonable can we expect both players treat handshakes as resignations/draw offers? etc.). 

16626: <p>In a amateur game, black offered a handshake and white shook hands with him and neither spoke any word and the game ended. Later they had a dispute whether the game is a draw or a win for white. Black claimed that his offering of a handshake was a draw offer and when white shook hands, white accepted his draw offer. White claimed that black's offering of a handshake was a resignation.</p>

<p>It is an amateur game and there is no game record. So what should the arbiter do in this situation? Here are a few possibilities:</p>

<ol>
<li>Claim this game as a draw.</li>
<li>Claim this game as win for white.</li>
<li>Try recovering the position when the game ended and ask them to keep playing from there. (This option may not be feasible as without a game record, they may not agree with the position)</li>
<li>Order a rematch.</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>Edit</strong>: I do not remember for sure but it may be a position that is obviously a draw but it appears one side is losing to an inexperienced player. For example, King at the corner vs rook pawn + bishop of "wrong colour". </p>
 21681: <p>Based on what @Annatar said, it may be interesting to know what was the situation on the board :</p>

<p>1 - Was white obviously winning ?
2 - Was there an obvious draw, such as a pat a few moves down the line ?</p>

<p>If 1, Black is either inexperienced or tried something fishy by asking for a draw while losing. So White wins.
If 2, then maybe it was reasonable of Black to ask for what was, to him, obvious. So ruling a draw is reasonable.</p>

<p>It would be weird if it's neither of those situations (obvious draw or obvious loss). You wouldn't offer a draw in a situation where nothing is resolved.</p>
 3445: <p>USCF and FIDE rules state that a draw should be made after the move but before hitting the clock. If those conditions have not been met, then the handshake could considered a resignation offer.</p>

<p><a href="https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-draw-offer-blues/</a></p>
 19877: <p>Based on the comments to the question above, there is no offical ruling body governing the rules, therefore, the guy running the tournament is the final authority. It is really up to his judgment. </p>

<p>If I were he, and there were time, I would try to see if we could reestablish the position, and finish from there. If not, I would declare a draw. I would not order a rematch unless there was some other great reason that was not listed above.</p>

<p>Lastly, I would make sure that I taught them the rules.</p>
 13433: <p>From my experience (small to medium central European Opens), offering a handshake without words is a commonly accepted form of resignation.</p>

<p>The handshake is not part of any official rules. However, there is some reasoning behind it:</p>

<p>You shake hands <em>after</em> the game ended (just as you do before it starts). So you only start extending your hand once that end is "set in stone".</p>

<p>If you extend your hand without a concrete reason on the board for an end of the game (checkmate, stalemate, 3-fold repetition etc.), you silently imply the other possible reason: That you just resigned, which is possible unilaterally. The "silently" part is the reason why this is done this way: It's less disturbing for neighbouring boards than saying "I resign" or laying down your king (in many piece sets, you can't make sure that it doesn't start rolling around). </p>

<p>If you instead wanted to only offer a draw, the game would not have ended (yet), as your opponent still has to accept. Thus, extending your hand makes no sense yet. But conversely, if you (properly by words) offer a draw, now your opponent may offer a silent handshake! Because once they (silently) agree to your draw offer, the game is over, and they can indicate this by stretching out their hand. </p>

<p>Of course, this "implied" way of ending games, even if it is more polite to other ongoing games, has the drawback that lead to the question here: It requires that both players are on the same page of what is actually implied. Even more problematic than the question are for example cases where one side saw a 3-fold repetition and implied "draw", but the other didn't see the repetition and assumed "resignation". Probably not the case here, it sounded like neither mentioned anything else but resignation or free draw offer. </p>

<hr>

<p>Edit: Because the question came up why the players would act this way, there are some thinkable scenarios:</p>

<ul>
<li>Black was dishonest. He deliberately acted ambiguously to trick White (in the hope that the arbiter would be convinced of his story that he only wanted to offer a draw). (correct result: 1-0)</li>
<li>Black was very inexperienced. Sometimes, weaker and especially younger players have the habit of always offering a draw before they resign (sometimes no matter how lost their position is), in the vague hope that the opponent is nice or doesn't see how winning they are. The handshake genuinely was intended to be a draw offer that White misinterpreted. (correct result: 1-0 with a degree of uncertainty. In my opinion, White should not be punished for acting in good faith, while Black with certainty did not offer a draw the correct way and thus has the weaker case).</li>
<li>It was actually White who was dishonest. We don't know the position. Maybe it wasn't actually all that winning and White exploited Black's naivete of not explicitly offering a draw by words. (correct result: 1/2-1/2)</li>
</ul>

<p>All these cases are mostly applicable to amateur tournaments. Top (and even advanced) players know that they just look like fools if they offer draws in lost positions or try to cheat that way. </p>

<p>To know which of these cases applies, we need more information (for example, what was each player's rough evaluation of the final position, how reasonable can we expect both players treat handshakes as resignations/draw offers? etc.). </p>
