Parties must exhaust contractual dispute resolution mechanisms, but such compliance cannot obstruct access to justice, especially when limitation periods are extended due to exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the award/order dated 14.02.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as “the Learned Tribunal” for the sake of brevity) in Reference Case No. 02/2023, titled Maa Bhagwati Construction v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, whereby the Reference Petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as not maintainable, the petitioner is constrained to prefer the present Civil Revision Petition under Section 19 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

2. Facts of the case, as projected by the applicant, in a nutshell, are that the applicant is an A-Class Contractor and is duly eligible to participate in various tenders issued by the Public Works Department of the State of Chhattisgarh. The applicant filed a Reference Case before the Learned Tribunal seeking an award allowing its claims to the tune of Rs. 40,27,584/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Twenty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty-Four Only) along with ante-lite, pendente-lite and post-lite interest, costs of arbitration and other appropriate reliefs. However, without adjudicating the claims on merits, the Learned Tribunal erroneously dismissed the reference petition solely on the ground of maintainability. The respondent department issued a Notice Inviting Tender dated 01.05.2017 for execution of certain construction work. The applicant, being an eligible bidder, participated in the tender process and its bid was accepted vide letter dated 05.07.2017. Pursuant thereto, an agreement bearing No. 64/D.L./2017-18 was executed for the work titled “Construction of 50-50 Capacity Prisoners Barracks (G+1) (12 Units) at Central Jail, Raipur with Electrification Work” (hereinafter referred to as the subject work). A work order was thereafter issued on 18.09.2017, and the applicant commenced execution of the subject work accordingly. The total contract value of the subject work was Rs. 11,12,33,000/-. The time allowed for completion of the work was 18 months, including the rainy season, with the stipulated date of completion being 17.03.2019. Immediately after issuance of the work order, the applicant submitted a detailed work programme dated 20.09.2017, clearly demonstrating its intention to complete the work well before the due date. The applicant successfully executed and completed the entire work on 12.11.2018, i.e., much prior to the stipulated date of completion, and a completion certificate to that effect was issued by the competent authority. During execution of the work, payments were made by the respondent department in accordance with the contractual terms at various stages. The final agreement bill, except for the incentive bonus, was released on 19.12.2019, which was acknowledged by the applicant under protest. As required under Clause 5 of the agreement, the petitioner submitted a written undertaking dated 05.11.2018, expressly waiving its right to seek any extension of time, thereby fulfilling all conditions necessary for entitlement to Incentive Bonus under Clause 5.3 of the agreement. Clause 5.3 of the agreement specifically provides that where the contractor completes the work before the original stipulated time and waives the right to claim extension of time, the contractor shall be entitled to payment of incentive bonus at the prescribed rates. Since the applicant fulfilled all the conditions under the said clause, it became legally entitled to the incentive bonus. The undertaking dated 05.11.2018 was duly served upon the respondent authorities