ORDER revision.

6. Following issue is raised for the consideration in this revision.

"Whether the tribunal wrongly considered the issue of the limitation of filing reference as the reference was time barred?"

7. Award dated 30/9/2002 was set aside in revision 76/2003 vide order date 27/6/2008 and remanded the reference petition to this tribunal to decide the petition fresh. After remand this case was again dismissed as time barred after applying the principle laid down in case M/s Serman India Road Makers (Pvt.) Limited Vs. State of M.P. reported as 2005 Arb.WLJ 583. In the above case it was held that a final cause of arbitration may be the date of preparation of the final bill or the date when any dispute has arisen.

8. Learned counsel for respondent argued that the reference case filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 7-B of the

1983 Act. Tribunal has rightly dismissed it as time barred.

9. It is profitable to reproduce the provision of 7 of the Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990.

7-A. Reference Petition.—(1) Every reference petition shall include whole of the claim which the party is entitled to make in respect of the works contract till the filing of the reference petition but no claims arising out of any other works contract shall be joined in such a reference petition.

(2) Where a party omits to refer or intentionally relinquishes any claim or any portion of his claim, he shall not afterwards be entitled to refer in respect of such claim or portion of claim so omitted or relinquished.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1)

or subsection (2) disputes relating to works contract which may arise after filing of the reference petition may be entertained as and when they arise, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed.

7-B. Limitation-

(1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless —

(a) the dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract; and (b) the petition to the Tribunal is made within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority :

Provided that if the final authority fails to decide the disputes within a period of six months from the date of reference to it, the petition to the Tribunal shall be made within one year of the expiry of the said period of six months.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where no proceeding has been commenced at all before any Court preceding the date of commencement of this Act or after such commencement but before the commencement of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990, a reference petition shall be entertained within one year of the date of commencement of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 1990 irrespective of the fact whether a decision has or has not been made by the final authority under the agreement.]

(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall not admit a reference petition unless it is made within three years from the date on which the works contract is terminated, foreclosed, abandoned or comes to an end in any other manner or when a dispute arises during the pendency of the works contract:

Provided that if a reference petition is filed by the State Government, such period shall be thirty years.

10. From a bare reading of the above provision it is clear that the section 7-2A of the Act was inserted on the date of 29/8/2005, although the petition was submitted before the tribunal on 7/10/1998 before enforcement of the provision of 2A of the Act. Hence, three year limitation is not applicable to the present case.

11. In the case of Sanjay Dubey v. State of M.P. and another, reported in 2012 (4) M.P.L.J. 212 while dealing with the interplay between contractual dispute resolution clauses and statutory limitation periods, particularly concerning the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, the key princi