The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that are barred by limitation.

( 1 ) AS both the civil revisions arise from a common award dated 27-10-93 passed in reference case No. 36/98 by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal in a reference under Section 7 (i) of the M. P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam'), they were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. The functionaries of the State have assailed the award in Civil Revision No. 54/94 and the claimant-contractor has questioned the pregnability of the same in Civil Revision No. 73/94.

( 2 ) THE facts as have been unfurled are that the claimant filed the aforesaid reference before the Tribunal for recovery of Rs. 2,99,606. 49 in relation to claims arising out of work contract No. 15/dl of 1980-81 dated 25-11-80. The aforesaid agreement was executed for construction of 'matia Moti Nallah Tank' for the earth work on the main bandh, from Ch. 16 to 22 in Mahanadi Godawari Basin, Raipur. The probable amount of contract was Rs. 10 lacs and the quoted rate of the respondent-petitioner therein was 2. 76% above UCSR. The stipulated period of contract was eight months and the work order was issued on 25-11-80. Extensions were granted to the claimant-respondent herein and the last extension was granted up to 31-5-82 by reserving the right to impose penalty for delay in performance of contract. While the work was in progress the work of compaction and watering was withdrawn from the respondent-contractor for which he filed an application under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in the Court of the learnedDistrict Judge, Durg who appointed a Commissioner for recording the measurements and directed the State Government to appoint an arbitrator under the agreement for settlement of disputes. But no action was taken by the State Government. The respondent, thereafter, filed an application for appointment of the arbitrator by the Court under Section 8 of the Act. The learned District Judge vide order dated 19-7-85 held that by virtue of Section 20 of the Adhiniyam the Civil Court had no jurisdiction and directed the respondent to approach the Tribunal. Thereafter, the claimants-respondents approached the Tribunal in the year 1988. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that the authorities of the State failed to supply the requisite designs, drawings and 'l' Section etc. . It was also alleged that the carrying out of work was not possible during the rainy season and the cut off trench excavated by the contractor-respondent was filled with water and slit. It was further alleged that there was no adequate arrangement for de-watering after rainy season. He resumed the work in cut off trench but met with a peculiar type of strata and it was desired that the depth of cut off trench be determined afresh in consultation with Geologist. Accordingly the extra items of work, namely, construction of boulder toe and compaction and watering of earth were not within the scope of agreement, were included in the agreement by mutual consent of the parties. However, the work of compaction and watering later on was illegally and arbitrarily withdrawn by the authorities of the State Government. Owing to this illegal withdrawal the respondent could not complete the contract work within the stipulated time and the extended period. On the aforesaid grounds the imposition of penalty by the owner was assailed. It was also putforth before the Tribunal that the agreement quantities exceeded and the rates of extra items were revised by the owner but the same was not acceptable to the claimants. The final bill of Rs. 1,98,019/- was prepared. But it did not include the extra items of work and the payment for the work of compaction and watering etc. . It was also alleged that final bill was also reduced to Rs. 42,742/- for no apparent reason. It was also setforth before the Tribunal that the State Administration allotted the balance work to the oth