Back
1996 Supreme(MP) 290
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S. K. Dubey, Shambhoo Singh, JJ.
RAJENDRA PRAKASH - PETITIONER
v.
M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD AND TWO OTHERS - RESPONDENTS
Civil Revision No. 41 of 1990,
Decided on : March 13, 1996.
Sh. P. S. Banthiya, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Sh. P. K. Jaiswal, Advocate, for the Respondents.
The definition of 'Works Contract' in Section 2(1)(i) of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 includes only classified Works Contracts and not other contracts.
Headnote:
MADHYA PRADESH MADHYASTHAM ADHIKARAN ADHINIYAM, 1983 - SECTION 2(1)(D), 2(1)(I), 7, 7-A, 16 - WORKS CONTRACT - INTERPRETATION - DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF WORKS CONTRACT - JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a contractor, entered into an agreement with the Board for feeding, breaking, and passing of coal at a thermal plant. A dispute arose between the parties, and the petitioner applied for a reference to the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the contract did not fall within the definition of 'Works Contract' under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal was right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the 'Works Contract' of which the dispute had arisen did not fall within the definition of 'Works Contract'.
Issues: Whether the dispute arose out of a 'Works Contract' as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of 'Works Contract' in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act and held that it included only classified Works Contracts and not other contracts. The court held that the contract for dumping and passing of coal through the hooper of the Thermal Power Station did not fall within the definition of 'Works Contract' and that the supply of coal or its feeding and passing of coal with the help of Hooper could not be said to be the work of maintenance of a factory.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition and held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
S. K. Dubey, J. - The petitioner/contractor has filed this revision under Section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short 'the Act') aggrieved of the award dated 16.10.1989 passed in Reference Case No. 87 of 1987 by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The facts leading to this revision are these. The petitioner in pursuance of the notice inviting tender (Ex. P2) submitted his tender for the work of feeding, breaking and passing of coal at hooper at Korba (Darri Kerva) West Bank Thermal Plant of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short 'the Board') of which an agreement was executed on 15.3.1986 (Ex. D. 23-A). A dispute in respect of certain claims arose between the petitioner and the Board. The petitioner applied for a reference under Section 7 of the Act to the Tribunal by a petition under Section 7-A of the Act which was contested by the Board. The Tribunal after holding that the respondent Board is covered within the definition of 'Public Undertaking', as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act, held that the contract of which the dispute arises, was not the "Works Contract" as defined under Section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal ordered return of the petition being not tenable, for its presentation before the appropriate forum.
3. Shri P. S. Banthia, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the interpretation of the definition of the "Works Contract" is wrong as the contract was of feeding and breaking and passing of coal in relation to the maintenance of the Factory as well as the Power House. Supply of material was in relation to the Factory and Power House for the purposes of maintenance. Learned Counsel took this Court through the preamble of the Act and the definition of dispute in Section 2(1)(d) and of "Works Contract" in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act by giving emphasis on the words "and includes an agreement for the supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the execution of any of the said works" in the definition of the "Works Contract" and submitted that the coal is the raw material which is required not only for generation of the electricity but is also required for the maintenance of the Factory as well as of the power house.
4. Shri P. K. Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the Board supported the award and submitted that no interference is called for in revision.
5. The Act has been enacted with an object of adjudication of the disputes speedily and impartially arising out of classified Works Contracts to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking, wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the State Government, is a party and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith by a statutory Tribunal constituted under the Act. Section 2 of the Act deals with the definitions. Section 2(1)(d) defines dispute means claim of ascertained money, valued at Rs. 50,000/- or more relating to any difference arising out of the execution or non-execution of a works contract or part thereof.
Section 2(1)(i) defines "Works Contract" means an agreement in writing for the execution of any work relating to construction, repair or maintenance of any building or superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservior, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory, workshop, power house, transformers or such other works of the State Government, or Public Undertaking as the State Government may by notification, specify in this behalf at any of its stages, entered into by the State Government or by an official of the State Government or Public Undertaking or its official for and on behalf of such Public Undertaking and includes an agreement for the supply of goods or material and all other matters relating to the execution of any of the said works.
6. Where a dispute arises between the contractor and the State Government or any Public Undertaking in respect of the 'Works Contract' irrespective of the fact whether
