ORDER D. M. Dharmadhikari, J. - In this revision on behalf of the contractor under Section 29 of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983, the only question raised is about the correctness of the decision of the Tribunal in rejecting the claim of the contractor on the ground that it is barred by limitation under Section 7-B of the Adhiniyam. 2. For deciding the above question of limitation only few facts need to be stated : "The contractor was given work of collection of 40 mm metal and soft moorum on Itarsi road. After payment of his three running bills he did not receive further payments. A dispute, therefore, arose. The contractor first approached the Superintending Engineer in terms of the contract who rejected the claim by communication dated 16-12-1985. The contractor then preferred an appeal to the Chief Engineer who took decision on 12-7-1989 partly in favour of the contractor. On the basis of the decision of the Chief Engineer, the contractor was paid a sum of Rs. 13,018/-. The contractor them wrote to the Chief Engineer for the balance amount of Rs. 42,434.60 on 8-11-1990. A copy of this letter, however, is not on record. By reply dated 3-7-1991, the Chief Engineer informed him that as per the decision of the Chief Engineer dated 12-7-1989 the payment was already made to him and he should not make any further claim or correspondence in the matter. Thereafter, the contractor preferred the claim before the Tribunal on 4-7-1992." 3. The Arbitration Tribunal held that after the decision of the Chief Engineer on the appeal preferred by the contractor dated 12-7-1989 as the contractor was not satisfied with part-payment of the sum claimed, he made a fresh claim on 8-11-1990 addressed to the Chief Engineer and demanded the balance amount of Rs. 42,434.60 paise. The claim raised by him by letter dated 8-11-1990 to the Chief Engineer was subsequently filed in the proceedings before the Tribunal as evidenced by its order dated 8-9-1994. The said letter, although not marked as exhibit is on record of the Tribunal and the copy of the said letter has been filed by the counsel for the contractor in the Tribunal. 4. The said letter, although not marked as exhibit is on record of the Tribunal and the copy of the said letter has been filed by the counsel for the contractor in the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal taking the commencement of the period of limitation from 8-11-1990 has held the claim preferred by the contractor as barred by time as it was not filed within one year from the expiry of six months period computed from 8-11-1990 in terms of Section 7-B(1)(b) of the Adhiniyam. 5. Learned counsel Shri Arun Kumar Choube appearing for the contractor in this revision contends that the Chief Engineer in appeal decided on 12-7-1989 having accepted the entire claim of the contractor, the contractor had only been writing to the department for full implementation of the said decision by payment of his remaining amount of bill. It is submitted that only when the claim of the contractor was turned down by letter dated 3-7-1991 that the cause of action arose and computing the period of limitation from the communication of rejection of his claim on 3-7-1991, the claim preferred on 4-7-1992 was within time. 6. We have also heard Shri Naman Nagrath, Panel Lawyer, appearing for the non-applicant State who supported the decision of the Tribunal on the question of limitation. 7. We have carefully gone through the contents of the decision of the Chief Engineer dated 12-7-1989 taken in appeal preferred by the contractor which is or record as Ex.P/2. From the contents of that decision we do not find anywhere that the entire claim of the contractor to the extent of Rs. 13,018/- which was already paid and Rs. 42,434.60 paise which remains to be paid had been allowed. In fact, there is no mention of any quantified amount in the decision of the Chief Engineer in appeal. 8. Assuming in favour of the contractor that the conducted some more payment under the decision of the Chief Engineer conveyed to him on 12-7-1989, the contractor having raised this claim for the so-called balance amount of his bill by letter 8-11-1990 the limitation had commenced from the lodging of the said claim for the unpaid amount of the bill. 9. The letter dated 9-4-1991 of the contractor which has been replied on 3-7-1991 (Ex.P/3) is not on record. 9. The letter dated 9-4-1991 of the contractor which has been replied on 3-7-1991 (Ex.P/3) is not on record. The contractor himself produced letter 8-11-1990 in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal to show that he had raised a claim for the balance amount of his bill under the decision of the Chief Engineer. The Tribunal was, therefore, fully justified in holding that period of limitation will have to be reckoned from 8-11-1990 and on expiry of six months of the lodgment of the said claim, the claim petition in the Tribunal should have been preferred within a period of one year but the same was not done. The relevant provision containing the period of limitation was introduced by amendment and the said Section 7-B reads as under : "Section 7-B : Limitation-(1) The tribunal shall not admit a reference - (a) In a case where a decision has been made in connection with a dispute under the terms of the agreement for a works-contract by the final authority under the agreement unless the reference petition is made within one year from the date of communication of such decision, if any, (b) in a case where a dispute has been referred to the final authority under the agreement and such authority fails to decide it within a period of six months from the date of reference to it unless the reference petition is made within one year from the date of 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 proceeding the date of commencement of this Act or after such 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 the 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. 10. The aforesaid provision quoted is plain enough to bring the case of the present contractor under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-B. In the instant case, the contractor had raised a dispute before the Chief Engineer by letter dated 5-11-1990 for a specific sum of Rs. 10. The aforesaid provision quoted is plain enough to bring the case of the present contractor under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-B. In the instant case, the contractor had raised a dispute before the Chief Engineer by letter dated 5-11-1990 for a specific sum of Rs. 42,434.60 paise and could have waited for a decision of his claim by the department for the maximum period of six months which ended on 14-5-1991. Thereafter within the prescribed period of one year under sub-clause (1) of sub-section (2) of Section 7-B i.e., on or before 14-5-1992 the contractor ought to have filed his claim in the Tribunal. The claim having been filed on 4-7-1992 was rightly held as barred by time. We find no merit in the contention advanced on behalf of the contractor that even after making a second reference on 8-11-1990 after the decision of the Chief Engineer on 12-7-1989, the contractor could claim a fresh period of limitation on the basis of his unexhibited letter 9-4-1991 and its rejection by communication dated 3-7-1991 (Ex.P/3). The law of Limitation does not contemplate raising of repeated references or claims to the prescribed authority under the contract. 11. We find no error of law in the order of the Tribunal. Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed, but in the circumstances, without any order as to costs. Revision petition dismissed.