Works contract forum under the Adhiniyam prevails over private arbitration, and the amended definition applies retrospectively.

The Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 was construed as applying to any written agreement that, in substance, answers the statutory definition of a works contract, regardless of its label or ancillary features such as concession, financing, or operation terms. A private arbitration or dispute-resolution clause does not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 7, because the statutory forum prevails over contract. The substituted definition of works contract was treated as clarificatory and retrospective, applying to pending and future contracts. The amended definition of dispute was read narrowly to cover only differences involving an ascertained money claim, excluding purely non-monetary claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an agreement, by whatever name called, that answers the definition of a works contract under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 must be referred to the Tribunal; (ii) whether the existence of an arbitration clause or other dispute-resolution clause excludes the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam; (iii) whether the substituted definition of works contract is clarificatory and applies to pending and future contracts; and (iv) whether only differences involving a claim of ascertained money fall within the statutory definition of dispute.

Issue (i): Whether an agreement, by whatever name called, that answers the definition of a works contract under the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 must be referred to the Tribunal.

Analysis: The definition of works contract was held to be wide and not controlled by nomenclature. The essential enquiry is whether the agreement is in writing and whether it provides for execution of work relating to construction, repair or maintenance, including matters incidental to such execution. Additional features such as concession period, financing arrangements, escrow accounts, operation, or other ancillary obligations do not by themselves take the agreement outside the statutory definition if the primary ingredients are satisfied.

Conclusion: Yes. Any agreement satisfying the statutory definition of works contract must be referred to the Tribunal constituted under the Adhiniyam of 1983.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of an arbitration clause or other dispute-resolution clause excludes the Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam.

Analysis: Section 7 gives overriding effect to the statutory forum by providing that either party to a works contract shall refer the dispute to the Tribunal irrespective of any arbitration clause. The statutory mandate cannot be displaced by contractual stipulation, because jurisdiction flows from the Act and not from consent. The only caveat left open was for terminated contracts, which was not decided finally in this reference.

Conclusion: No. A contractual arbitration clause does not oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction where the dispute otherwise falls within the Adhiniyam.

Issue (iii): Whether the substituted definition of works contract is clarificatory and applies to pending and future contracts.

Analysis: The amendment was treated as intended to clarify that concession agreements are also covered by the statutory concept of works contract. The Court relied on the statement of objects and reasons, the use of substitution, and the absence of any new burden or disability. On that basis, the amended definition was held to operate retrospectively and to apply to pending as well as future contracts.

Conclusion: Yes. The substituted definition is clarificatory and retrospective in operation.

Issue (iv): Whether only differences involving a claim of ascertained money fall within the statutory definition of dispute.

Analysis: The amended definition of dispute was construed as narrower than the earlier one and as confined to claims that are already quantified and determined. A mere claim for extension of time or other non-monetary relief, without an ascertained money claim, does not satisfy the statutory definition. The Court therefore held that the Tribunal can be approached only where the dispute is one for ascertained money.

Conclusion: Yes. Only differences relating to a claim of ascertained money fall within the statutory definition of dispute.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered by holding that works contracts, including covered concession agreements, fall within the Tribunal's statutory forum notwithstanding private arbitration clauses, that the amendment is clarificatory and retrospective, and that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to disputes involving ascertained money.

Ratio Decidendi: For a contract to fall within the Adhiniyam, its real nature must satisfy the statutory ingredients of a works contract, contractual dispute-resolution clauses cannot override the Act's mandatory forum, and the amended definition may operate retrospectively where it is clarificatory rather than substantive.

---