ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. The revision has been preferred by the M.P. Housing Board aggrieved by award dated 16-3-2000 passed in Reference Case No. 16/98 by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal allowing the claim preferred by the respondents to the extent of Rs. 1,58,755/- along with the proportionate cost and the interest @ 12% per annum on Rs, 1,09,429/- from 5-3-1998 till the date of realization. 2. The respondent M/s Khaildas Constructions preferred claim before M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal under section 7 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). Respondent entered into a contract with M.P. Housing Board on 27-3-1992 with respect to work of external electrification at 60 acres of land situated at Satlapur, Mandideep vide agreement No. 62/Dn.3 of 92-93. NIT was issued on 10-1-1992, offer was accepted on 23-6-1992, original amount of contract work was 61,41,907/-. Work order was issued on 28-3-1992. Period of completion was 6 months from the date of work order i.e. by 27-9-1992. After grant of extension work was completed on 6-12-1993. Total cost of work as per final bill, done by the M.P. Housing Board was 81,59,956/-. It is further mentioned in Para-16 of the reference petition that work was completed on 6-12-1993 while final bill was paid in two parts on 2-11-1994 and 4-3-1995. Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 5,23,017/- on account of escalation of cost for the work done. The claim made was of Rs. 4,29,898/-, loss on account of wrongly applying the condition of 1% rebate Rs. 12,303 and interest on delayed payment of final bill Rs. 80,816/-. In Para-22 following amendments have been made :- 22. The above claims were first preferred before the Executive Engineer on 15-5-1995 who forwarded them to the Dy. Housing Commissioner for decision in terms of clause 29 of the agreement (Annexure A-38). Rejection of claims by the said Dy. Housing Commissioner an appeal was preferred to the Additional Housing Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal on 8-1-1996 (Annexure A-39 and A-40) which too was rejected by him even without hearing the petitioner. (Annexure A-41). Again an attempt was made by appealing to the Dy. Housing Commissioner H. B. Bhopal Vide No. 858/97 dated 26-9-1997 (Annexure A-51) because the rejection of the claim in letter dt. (Annexure A-41). Again an attempt was made by appealing to the Dy. Housing Commissioner H. B. Bhopal Vide No. 858/97 dated 26-9-1997 (Annexure A-51) because the rejection of the claim in letter dt. 24-12-1996 (Annexure A-39) was signed by the Accounts officer of his office and thus was not a speaking order to afford him opportunity to confirm that the rejection was within his competence under clause 29 of agreement. A copy of this reference was also sent to the Additional Housing Commissioner who is the highest authority to decide the claim under clause 29 of the agreement. (Annexure A-41). However, it too was rejected by the Additional Commissioner Housing Board, Bhopal vide letter No. 7424 dt. 11-7-1997. (Annexure A-49). This reference petition is thus being made within 12 months from the date of rejection of the claim by the final authority laid down in the agreement and as such is within the limitation period prescribed in section 7-B(l)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. This tribunal has exclusive territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Actually quantified claims were submitted on 1-9-1997 to Dy. Housing Commissioner by Anx A-50 and no decision on these claims had been given by the authority. This claim petition is presented after waiting six months for the decision and is within limitation. 3. It was submitted on behalf of M.P. Housing Board in the reply that claim petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, claim on merit has also been denied. 4. The Arbitration Tribunal has held the application to be within time. The quantified claim was submitted on 1-9-1997. Limitation under section 7-B(l)(a) started from 1-9-1997, thus it was open to file application before the Tribunal within 18 months from the date of reference to the final authority. The aforesaid amount has been awarded under the head of escalation. Dissatisfied thereby the revision has been preferred by the M.P. Housing Board. 5. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Ms. Ruth Rao for the appellant has submitted that claim was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 7-B of the Adhiniyam as it existed at the relevant time. He has also submitted that claim petition preferred was hopelessly barred by limitation. The Tribunal has erred in holding otherwise. 5. Shri Ajay Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing with Ms. Ruth Rao for the appellant has submitted that claim was barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 7-B of the Adhiniyam as it existed at the relevant time. He has also submitted that claim petition preferred was hopelessly barred by limitation. The Tribunal has erred in holding otherwise. He has placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in State of M.P. and Another v. Kamalkishore Sharma, 2006 (2) MPLJ 113 and Ravikant Bansal v. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Gwalior) Ltd., 2006 (2) MPU 299. He has also submitted that on merits, escalation awarded was over and above the terms and condition mentioned in the contract, thus the amount awarded by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. 6. First we take up for consideration question with respect to limitation. Section 7-B was inserted by M.P. Act No. 9/1990 w.e.f. 24-4-1990, it was substituted by M.P. Act No. 36/1995 w.e.f. 15-12-1995. Section 7-B as it was inserted in 1990 read thus : 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. (c) 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. Section 7-B after its substitution in the year 1995 as per Act No. 36 of 1995 read thus: 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 dispute 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. 7. Clause 29 of the agreement, which is placed on record of the Tribunal is also relevant, same is quoted below :- Clause 29. Except as otherwise provided in this contract all questions and disputes relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions, hereinbefore mentioned as to thing whatsoever, in any way, arising out of or relating to the contract, designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, 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 Dy. Housing Commissioner in writing for his decision within a period of thirty days of such occurrence. Thereupon, the Dy. Housing Commissioner shall give in written instructions and/or decision within a period of sixty days of such written request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decision, the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such decision or instructions. If the Dy. Thereupon, the Dy. Housing Commissioner shall give in written instructions and/or decision within a period of sixty days of such written request. This period can be extended by mutual consent of the parties. Upon receipt of written instructions or decision, the parties shall promptly proceed without delay to comply such decision or instructions. If the Dy. Housing Commissioner fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within a period of sixty days or mutually agreed time after being requested if the parties are aggrieved against the decision of the Dy. Housing Commissioner, the parties may within thirty days prefer such dispute/disputes for arbitration to the Addl. Housing Commissioner subject to the jurisdiction and limitations in accordance with the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. In case, the dispute is within the jurisdiction of Addl. Housing Commissioner he shall then act as sole arbitrator, and he shall pass an award after hearing both the parties, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the rule made thereunder for the time being in force. If the contractor does not make any demand for arbitration in respect of claim(s) in writing within ninety days on receiving information from the Executive Engineer that the final bill is ready for payment, the claim of the contractor shall be deemed to have been waived and shall be absolutely barred and the Board shall be discharged or released of all the liabilities under the contract in respect of such claims (s). A reference to the Arbitration, shall be no ground for not continuing the work on the part of the contractor and payment as per terms and conditions of the agreement shall be continued by the Board. 8. The provision which was in the force before it was amended vide Act No. 36/95 provided that the decision made in connection with the dispute under the terms of agreement for work contract by final authority, the reference petition was to be made within one year from the date of communication of such decision and in case dispute is referred to final authority and no decision is taken within six months, reference petition was required to be made within one year from the date of expiry of 6 months. Under the amended provision vide Act No. 36/95 which remained in force till the provision was amended vide M.P. Act No. 19/03 w.e.f. 29-4-2003 with which amendment we are not concerned in the instant matter. The facts as mentioned by the petitioner in Paras-16 and 22 of the reference petition when taken into consideration, it is apparent that the reference petition preferred before the Tribunal was clearly barred by limitation. Respondent himself has mentioned in the reference petition that work was completed on 6-12-1993 while final bill was paid in 2 parts on 2-11-1994 and 4-3-1995. From the aforesaid averments made in Para-22 it is clear that after settlement of final bill on 4-3-1995 petitioner preferred the claim before Executive Engineer on 15-5-1995 who forwarded it to Dy. Housing Commissioner for decision in terms of Clause 29 of the agreement. The Dy. Housing Commissioner rejected the claim as per order dated 24-12-1996. On rejection of claim appeal was preferred to the Addl. Housing Commissioner on 8-1-1996 which was also rejected as per order (A-41), thereafter again dispute was preferred before Dy. Housing Commissioner on 16-9-1997 because as per Contractor the rejection of claim and letter dated 24-12-1996 was signed by the Accounts Officer and it was not a speaking order to confirm that the rejection was within competence under Clause 29 of the agreement. Addl. Commissioner rejected the claim on 11-7-1997, thus the respondent has claimed that his claim was within 12 months of the rejection by the final authority. 9. It is apparent from Clause 29 of the agreement that it was necessary for the respondent to approach Dy. Housing Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date the dispute arose. Dy. Housing Commissioner was required to decide it within 60 days, thereafter matter in arbitration was to be taken by Addl. Housing Commissioner in case parties so desire. In the instant case, the respondent had preferred the claim before Executive Engineer on 15-5-1995 which stood rejected by Dy. Housing Commissioner. The Dy. Housing Commissioner rejected the claim vide letter dated 24-12-1995. In our opinion, the dispute arose at the time of final settlement of bill on 4-3-1995, thus as per clause 29 of the agreement Dy. Housing Commissioner should have been approached within 30 days. Housing Commissioner. The Dy. Housing Commissioner rejected the claim vide letter dated 24-12-1995. In our opinion, the dispute arose at the time of final settlement of bill on 4-3-1995, thus as per clause 29 of the agreement Dy. Housing Commissioner should have been approached within 30 days. Even assuming that the claim preferred on 15-5-1995 was within period from the date on which the dispute arose, as per claim made in Para-22, the claim was rejected by Dy. Housing Commissioner and thereafter an appeal was preferred to Addl. Housing Commissioner on 8-1-1996. No appeal is provided under clause 29 of the agreement only reference could have been made under the provision of Arbitration Act, 1940 to the Addl. Housing Commissioner which was not resorted to even as per the averments made by the contractor in the reference petition filed before the Tribunal. Thus appeal preferred was clearly incompetent appeal it was not maintainable. It is apparent from the averments made in Para-22 that matter was decided by the Dy. Housing Commissioner before 8-1-1996, thereafter again claim was rejected on 24-12-1996. Taking the dates of two rejections on 8-1-1996 and 24-12-1996, the period of limitation came to an end in December, 1996 and in January, 1997 respectively. Appeal preferred to the Addl. Housing Commissioner was clearly not provided in terms of Clause 29 of the agreement. As per section 7-B, the dispute should have been preferred before Tribunal within one year from the date of rejection. Merely by the fact that contractor has averred by inserting amendment in reference application that quantified claim was preferred to the Dy. Housing Commissioner on 1-9-1997, his case is not at all saved from being barred by limitation. It cannot be said that quantified claim made belatedly on 1-9-1997 was in terms of clause 29 of the agreement which provided that it was necessary to approach the final authority i.e. Dy. Housing Commissioner within a period of 30 days from the date the dispute arose as per clause 29 of the agreement. In the instant case dispute arose much earlier as averred by the petitioner in Paras-16 and 22, on the settlement of final bill. Thus the Tribunal erred in holding that dispute preferred on 1-9-1997 provided the fresh start of limitation. In the instant case dispute arose much earlier as averred by the petitioner in Paras-16 and 22, on the settlement of final bill. Thus the Tribunal erred in holding that dispute preferred on 1-9-1997 provided the fresh start of limitation. Filing of dispute belatedly defeated the claim, the right of preferring claim under clause 29 of the agreement was not available on the aforesaid date as it is clearly provided in section 7-B(l)(a) that dispute is required to be referred to the final authority in terms of clause of agreement. Thus the dispute preferred belatedly on 1-9-1997 could not be said to be permissible under clause 29 of the agreement. Even the amended provision of section 7-B(l)(a) amended vide Act No. 36/95 provides that the dispute has to be first referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract. In the instant case reference made on 1-9-1997 could not be said to be within limitation as prescribed in clause 29 of the agreement. Period of limitation actually started from the date the earlier disputes were decided/rejected. The reference of quantified dispute later on was hopelessly beyond period of limitation prescribed in the agreement itself which has reference under section 7-B(l)(a).Even if when we consider that dispute was not decided by the competent authority within six months from the date it was preferred on 25-5-1996 maximum period of 18 months contemplated under section 7-B(l)(a) came to an end in November, 1997. The reference petition filed later on was barred by limitation. 10. Full Bench of this Court in State of M. P. and Another v. Kamal Kishore Sharma (supra) has opined thus :- 10. Under Clause 28 parties had agreed that the dispute when it will arise shall be referred within thirty days from the cancellation, abandonment or any dispute during the substance of the contract to the Superintending Engineer. Superintending Engineer shall proceed to decide the dispute within sixty days or within such time as agreed by the parties. Thus there is no restriction in the agreement. Superintending Engineer shall proceed to decide the dispute within sixty days or within such time as agreed by the parties. Thus there is no restriction in the agreement. Parties have mutually agreed that within thirty days of decision of such dispute, the contractor if not satisfied with the decision of the Superintending Engineer may file an appeal within thirty days to the Chief Engineer, which shall be decided by him within a period of six months after affording an opportunity of hearing to parties and opportunity of adducing evidence. Chief Engineer is the final authority under Clause 29 of the agreement. In the circumstances there is no reduction in the period of limitation and this condition is not violative of the period of limitation prescribed in the Act and the Act also provides that when a dispute is referred to the final authority in the terms of works contract, then petition will lie within one year from the date of communication of the decision of the final authority but where final authority fails to decide the dispute within a period of six months, then petition to the Tribunal shall be made within one year from the expiry of said period of six months. Thus, provision in the Act as well as in the agreement is identical and period of limitation is not curtailed by clause 29 of the agreement. Therefore, section 28 of the Contract Act is not attracted and conditions in clause 29 of the agreement are not void. 11. In the present case final authority is mentioned in Clause 29 of the agreement. Clause 29 provides that if the Superintending Engineer fails to decide the dispute within sixty days or mutually agreed time after being requested, if the parties are aggrieved against the decision of the Superintending Engineer, the parties may within 30 days prefer an appeal to the Chief Engineer who shall afford an opportunity to the parties of being heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. The Chief Engineer will give his decision within six months. It further provides that if any party is not satisfied with the decision of Chief Engineer, he can refer such dispute for arbitration by an Arbitration Board. Now when the question of referring the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal is concerned, it will mean reference to the Tribunal. The Chief Engineer will give his decision within six months. It further provides that if any party is not satisfied with the decision of Chief Engineer, he can refer such dispute for arbitration by an Arbitration Board. Now when the question of referring the dispute to the Arbitration Tribunal is concerned, it will mean reference to the Tribunal. Therefore, final authority under the works contract will be the Chief Engineer and the dispute must be referred to him under the terms of the contract as both the parties had agreed to refer the dispute to the Chief Engineer and if any of the party is not satisfied with the decision of the Chief Engineer, then they can seek recourse of decision by the Arbitrator. Thus, dispute can only be entertained by the tribunal after dispute is referred for the decision of the final authority under the terms of the works contract. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the language of section 7-B(l) is clear and specific which provides that dispute must be referred to the Arbitrator under the terms of the contract. Even if we peruse the original text in Hindi, the language used in section 7-B(l) is reproduced as under : As per aims and object amendment is brought because wordings of section is defective and has been properly clarified by the amendment. 16. Considering the provision of section 7-B(l)(a) we are of the opinion that on interpreting the provisions of section 7-B(l) it is crystal clear that no reference shall be admitted by the Tribunal unless dispute is first referred for the decision of the final authority in a manner as provided under the terms of the contract. Thus, right of contractor to approach Tribunal arises after he has approached final authority after decision of Superintending Engineer in terms of the contract. If the contractor has failed to approach the final authority as provided under the terms and conditions of the works contract, petition will not be admitted by the Tribunal. Dispute to the final authority should be preferred in the manner prescribed under the works contract. Since in the present case it is provided that in the case of abandonment or cancellation or in any dispute of works contract, the dispute must be raised before the Superintending Engineer within a period of 30 days. Dispute to the final authority should be preferred in the manner prescribed under the works contract. Since in the present case it is provided that in the case of abandonment or cancellation or in any dispute of works contract, the dispute must be raised before the Superintending Engineer within a period of 30 days. On his failure to decide the dispute within 60 days or after decision of the dispute, appeal must be preferred within 30 days, which shall be decided by Chief Engineer within 90 days. Therefore, if appeal has not been preferred to the final authority in accordance with the terms of the works contract, petition will not be maintainable before the Tribunal. 11. In the instant case two decisions were rendered earlier on 8-1-1996 and thereafter on 24-12-1996 by Dy. Housing Commissioner as per averment made in Para 22 of the reference petition, the limitation to approach Tribunal was of one year from the aforesaid first order. The reference petition preferred on 5-3-1998 before the Arbitration Tribunal at Bhopal was clearly barred by limitation. Thus we have no hesitation in setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. Resultantly, the revision is allowed. Impugned award is set aside. No costs. Petition allowed.