( 1 ) THIS revision application under Sec. 12 of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner-Sardar Patel university that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner-University had given a contract to construct Gordhanbhai hathibhai Patel Institute of Material Science Building to the respondent M/s. Patel and Co. A dispute arose between the parties in connection with the said work. Both the parties had appointed Arbitrator. The Arbitrators after considering the facts and evidence of the case declared their award dated 16-9-1992. On 19-9-1992 both the arbitrators had submitted the award to the Civil Judge (S. D.), Anand, under Sec. 14 (2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 which was registered as Miscellaneous Civil Application no. 54 of 1992. On coming into force of the Act, 1992 on 1-1-1994 the learned civil Judge (S. D.), Anand transferred the said case to the Tribunal in view of the provisions of Sec. 21 of the Act, 1992.

( 3 ) SECTION 8 of the Act makes it obligatory for either of the parties to refer the dispute to the Tribunal for arbitration irrespective of the fact that the work contract contains arbitration lause or not. Section 21 oust the jurisdiction of the civil Court. It provides that on the commencement of the Act any dispute arising from a work contract and/or arbitration proceedings any such dispute before an arbitrator Umpire, Court or Authority shall stand transferred to the Tribunal. Work contract has been defined in clause (k) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act which means contract made by the State Government or public undertaking with any other person for execution of any of its work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory or workshop or of such other work of the State government or as the case may be, of the public undertaking, as the State government may, by notification, in the Official Gazette specify. The petitioner- sardar Patel University is not admittedly State. Therefore, only question which arises for consideration in the present case is -"whether Sardar Patel University is a public undertaking within the meaning of clause (ii) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 of the Act. "

( 4 ) IT is contended by Mr. S. N. Shelat, learned Addl. Advocate General that the Tribunal has committed error in holding that the University is a body corporate controlled by the State Government and therefore, it is a public undertaking as per sec. 2 (1 ) (i) of the Act.

( 5 ) TO appreciate the contention it will be convenient to read the definition of public undertaking as given in sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 2 thus :-" (I) any company as defined in Sec. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fiftyone percent, of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government or any company which is subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first mentioned company. (II) any Corporation (not being a company as defined. in Sec. 3 of the Companies act, 1956 or a local authority) established by or under a Central Act or a State Act and owned or controlled by the State Government. (III) such class of authorities as the State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify. "

( 6 ) THE University being not Company, obviously. Clause (i) cannot be attracted. So as also Clause (iii) is not attracted as there is no notification with respect to the University. Clause (ii) says that any Corporation established by or under a Central act or a State Act and owned or controlled by the State Government. This excludes the Company as defined under Sec. 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 or a local authority. Therefore, the question is whether Sardar Patel University is a Corporation established by a Central o