JUDGMENT 1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11-2-13 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in MJC No. 49/12 whereby an application filed by the respondent under Section 17A of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1983") read with Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was allowed and the delay was condoned in filing the claim petition, the present petition has been filed. Short facts of the case are that the respondent filed a petition on 19-10-12 under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 1983 for compensation. Alongwith the said application, an application for condonation of delay was filed. The application was opposed by the present petitioners. After hearing the parties, the application filed by the respondent was allowed and the delay in filing the claim petition was condoned, against which present petition has been filed. 2. Shri Vivek Khedkar, leaned Counsel for the petitioners submit that undisputedly the work was completed on 31-12-08 and the respondent was supposed to refer the matter for arbitration before the Competent Authority within the stipulated period of 45 days, but it was not done. It is submitted that the application for appointment of Arbitrator was filed for the first time on 25-3-10, and it was rejected by the present petitioners vide order dated 30-4-10. Against which, the respondent filed a petition bearing Case No. 4/10 before this Court under Section 11(6) of the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, which was dismissed vide order dated 11-3-11, against which SLP was filed by the respondent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was disposed of vide order dated 29-7-11 passed in SLP (C) No. 18867/11, thereafter an application was filed for recalling the order dated 29-7-11 and the said application was dismissed as withdrawn on 14-10-11. Thereafter, a review petition was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court which was dismissed vide order dated 8-2-12 passed in Review Petition (C) No. 2804/11. Thereafter a review petition was filed before this Court which was dismissed vide order dated 7-3-12 passed in R.P. No. 93/12. It is submitted that since the claim petition was filed on 19-10-12 before the Madhyastham Adhikaran, while the work was closed in the month of June, 2009, therefore, on the face of it the claim petition filed by the respondent was barred by time. It is submitted that since the claim petition was filed on 19-10-12 before the Madhyastham Adhikaran, while the work was closed in the month of June, 2009, therefore, on the face of it the claim petition filed by the respondent was barred by time. It is submitted that while deciding the application for condonation of delay, learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration Section 7B(2-A) of the Adhiniyam, 1983. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. 3. Shri Amit Bansal, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the claim petition was filed by the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of order passed by this Court on 5-10-12. It is submitted that since the Limitation Act is applicable and the appropriate application for condonation of delay was filed and respondent was bonafidely prosecuting the case before this Court and also before Hon'ble Apex Court, therefore, learned Tribunal has rightly excluded the period spent by the respondent and also condoned the delay. It is submitted that the petition be dismissed. 4. Important dates and events are as under:-- 5. The claim petition/reference which was filed on 19-10-12 was alongwith application under Section 14 of Limitation Act and Section 17A of Adhiniyam, 1983. Section 17A of Adhiniyam, 1983 deals with inherent powers of the Tribunal, which reads as under:-- 17-A. Inherent powers.-- Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent powers of the Tribunal to make such order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Tribunal: Provided that no interim order by way of injunction, stay or attachment before award shall be granted: Provided further that the Tribunal shall have no power to review the award including the interim award. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Tribunal has observed that because of change in Law the delay occurred and also the respondent was prosecuting his cause upto the Supreme Court. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Tribunal has observed that because of change in Law the delay occurred and also the respondent was prosecuting his cause upto the Supreme Court. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is in two folds, firstly while deciding the application the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration Section 7B of Adhiniyam, 1983, which reads as under:-- 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. (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. 7. Learned Counsel submits that the minimum period of limitation is of three years, which includes the delay and since the work was completed on 31-12-08, therefore, on 19-10-12 when the application was filed was barred by time and in view of Section 7B of the Adhiniyam, 1983, the learned Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. 7. Learned Counsel submits that the minimum period of limitation is of three years, which includes the delay and since the work was completed on 31-12-08, therefore, on 19-10-12 when the application was filed was barred by time and in view of Section 7B of the Adhiniyam, 1983, the learned Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. The other contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration that the respondent was prosecuting bonafidely upto the Supreme Court, while the period cannot be excluded spent by a party in prosecuting the remedy before the Supreme Court. It is submitted that it is only in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, the benefit of exclusion can be given to a party under Section 14 of Limitation Act. Learned Counsel submits that since Special Leave Petition is not a statutory remedy available to a party, therefore, time spent by the respondent before the Supreme Court cannot be excluded. It is further submitted that against the order of appointment of Arbitrator SLP was dismissed on 24-7-11, thereafter the review application was filed, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 19-10-11, therefore, application for recalling the order was filed, which was dismissed on 8-2-12, therefore, this period could not have been excluded. 8. From perusal of the record, it is evident that both these aspects were not taken into consideration by the learned Madhyastham Adhikaran at the time of disposal of application filed by respondent. In view of this, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Madhyastham Adhikaran to re-decide the application filed by respondent keeping in view the provisions of Section 7B of Adhiniyam, 1983 and Section14 of Limitation Act after hearing the parties. With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.