ORDER S. K. Dubey, J. - By this revision under Section 19 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short the 'Adhiniyam'), the petitioner - Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short the 'Board') has challenged the award dated 15.5.1989 passed in Reference Case No. 13 of 1988 by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal Bhopal (for short the 'Tribunal'). 2. Challenge to award is on three grounds : (i) that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable on the Board as it is not a 'Public Undertaking' as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Adhiniyam. (ii) the claim in relation to the costs of the cement amounting to Rs. 51,120/- was deducted by the Divisional Engineer of the Board, for such deduction, a claim was not preferred in accordance with Clause 14 of the agreement, to the Superintending Engineer within one month from the date of rejection i.e., 26.12.1986. The claim lodged was on 12.3.1987 vide Ex. P-5. before the Superintending Engineer, therefore, the claim was barred. (iii) the award of the costs of the cement is against the terms of the agreement. 3. The contention No. 1 has no merit as this court had recently in M.P. 4904/89 Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur v. M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran and another, decided on 5.10.1995, taken the view that the Board falls within the definition of 'Public Undertaking' as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Adhiniyam and therefore, the provisions of the Adhiniyam are applicable on the Board, as the functions which are being carried out by the Board are in the nature of public functions clearly related to the Governmental functions intended for the benefit of the public and for its social upliftment. Therefore, the conclusion is irresistible that the Board which is a statutory Corporation is not only an instrumentality or agency of the State Government, but, is a public agency falling within Section 2(1)(g) of the Adhiniyam is as much as it is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the State Government. The expression 'Company' in Section 2(1)(g) has been used in its general legal sense and takes in any Government owned or controlled statutory corporation established by the State Government to discharge its functions which were being discharged by the Government. The expression 'Company' in Section 2(1)(g) has been used in its general legal sense and takes in any Government owned or controlled statutory corporation established by the State Government to discharge its functions which were being discharged by the Government. Hence even though the Board has got functional autonomy, it will not be out of kin of the expression "Public Undertaking" as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Adhiniyam, therefore, the provisions of the Adhiniyam are applicable and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide the dispute arising out of the works contract on the reference made to the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam. 4. Re-contention No. 2 : the contention of the petitioner that the claim was not lodged in accordance with Clause 14 of the agreement, therefore, there was no cause for making reference it would be appropriate to refer Clause 14 and Clause 27 of the agreement Clause 14 fixes time limit for claim of the contractor, which lays down that under no circumstances whatever shall the contractor be entitled to make any claim from the Board on any account whatsoever unless the contractor shall have submitted a claim in writing to the Engineer-in-Charge within on month of the cause of such claim accuring. In the event of the contractor not lodging any claim as aforesaid, he will be deemed to have abandoned such a claim. 5. Clause 27 of the agreement reads thus : "All question relating to the meaning of the specification, designs, drawing and instruction issued under this contract and as to the quality of workmanship of material used on the work or as to any other question claim, right matter or thing whatsoever, in any way arising out of relating to the contract, design, drawing, specifications, estimate, instructions orders or the conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same, whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof shall be referred to the Superintending Engineer (Civil), M.P. Elec. Board of the Circle under whose jurisdiction the site of work is situated at the time when such reference is made and the decision of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), shall be final. Board of the Circle under whose jurisdiction the site of work is situated at the time when such reference is made and the decision of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), shall be final. In case the contractor is not satisfied with the decision of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), he should lodge a claim within 30 days (Thirty days) of the receipt of the final decision of the Superintending Engineer (Civil), for arbitration by any person nominated by the Board in consultation with the Contractor. The person so nominated shall be the single and sole arbitrator." 6. In the case in hand, the Divisional Engineer rejected the claim on 26.12.1986 vide Ex. P-3. The Divisional Engineer for passing the running bills passed an order that the costs of the cement shall be deducted from the bills of the contractor amounting to Rs. 51,120/-, of which the petitioner submitted a reply Ex. P-4 dated 17.1.1987 making a protest and demand, thereafter lodged a claim vide Ex. P-5 dated 12.3.1987 to the Superintending Engineer (Civil). The Superintending Engineer entertained the claim wherein the objection to entertainability of the claim within 30 days was not raised. Not only this, the Superintending Engineer also did not reject the claim as not lodged in the manner prescribed and time fixed under Clause 14, but, rejected the claim on merit by giving his decision. After the decision, the respondent/contractor filed a reference petition under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam for a reference to the Tribunal under Section 7 within the period prescribed under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam. The Tribunal rejected, the objection to entertainability of the reference petition. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the claim was not at all raised, but, in response to the letter of the Divisional Engineer, the contractor made a protest, therefore, it cannot be considered a claim raised in accordance with Clause 14. In fact for the first time, the claim was raised on 12.3.1987, therefore, on this count of the reference made to the Tribunal was not entertainable and ought to have been rejected. In the facts of the case we are of the view that as the contractor made a protest and raised the claim in its reply. In fact for the first time, the claim was raised on 12.3.1987, therefore, on this count of the reference made to the Tribunal was not entertainable and ought to have been rejected. In the facts of the case we are of the view that as the contractor made a protest and raised the claim in its reply. However, though the contractor did not raise the claim in the manner as laid down in Clause 14, but, when the claim was raised dated 12.3.1987, neither the Board objected to its entertainability nor the Superintending Engineer gave its decision rejecting the claim as having been abandoned, therefore, the objection to entertainability of the claim would be deemed to have been waived. 8. Re-contention No. 3 : It is contended that the communications Ex. P-2. accepting and for executing the contract, the tender of the petitioner Ex. P-2. clearly states that the rates are inclusive of cement and steel and for that all material separate payment shall not be made. The contention has no merit in view of Clause 14 of Special Conditions of Contract which deals with the costs of cement, relevant clause of which with it's striking and addition reads thus : "14. Departmental supply of materials. ............................................................ Cement and steel for reinforcement will be supplied to the contractor if so specified in Schedule 'B' at the rate specified in the schedule free of cost at the departmental stores at the location specified under Schedule 'B'. The Contractor shall make his own arrangement for the storage of cement at the work site. Handling and storage facilities shall be so arranged that no cement shall be kept in storage for more than 120 days. If any cement is kept as along as 180 days, it will be tested before use at the cost of the contractor and if found defective in any way it shall condemned from being shall not be entitled to any compensation be for each condements cement ...... Steel if supplied by the department shall be transported to the site at contractor's own cost. The contractor shall make his own arrangements for keeping steel to the site." 9. Steel if supplied by the department shall be transported to the site at contractor's own cost. The contractor shall make his own arrangements for keeping steel to the site." 9. From the above, it is clear that the cement and steel for reinforcement was agreed to be supplied free of cost from the departmental rates of the Board, therefore, the claim for illegal deduction of cost of cement could not have been rejected. The petitioner contends that at the time of execution of contract agreement, there was no striking out of the words 'at the rates specified in the said schedule' and substitution of words 'free of cost'. Scoring and addition of word and writings have been made afterwards. The burden was on the contractor to lead evidence to the fact that the supply of cement and steel was free of cost and there was no addition or alteration made in the agreement, that burden was not discharged. Therefore, the Tribunal ought not have awarded cost of cement of Rs. 51,120/- particularly when the contractor quoted the rates of UCSR of 1984 which includes the cost of cement. The contention has no merit as the respondent proved the agreement by stating on oath, on that, no cross-examination was made about the striking out of the words and writing in Clause 14. Besides, the Board also did not lead any evidence in rebuttal to prove that cement and steel was not agreed to be supplied free of cost. In such circumstances the finding of the Tribunal recorded after appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam as neither the finding is perverse nor is manifestly illegal. 10. In the result, this revision has no merits and is dismissed with no orders as to costs.