( 1 ) U. P. State Electricity Board is before us in these appeals assailing the impugned judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by it, questioning the validity and correctness of the common award passed by the Labour Court, U. P. , Varanasi, under which the respondent workmen were held to be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the workmen were declared to be entitled to back wages from the date of reference i. e. between July 26, 1997 to July 29, 1997, as the case may be, in respect of the respective workmen. The facts leading to reference of disputes and the contentions advanced were common, hence, the Labour Court passed the common award. Conciliation proceedings were initiated in 1997. When they failed, the appropriate government made reference of the disputes in the year 1997 itself. The Labour Court, considering the material placed on record in the light of the respective contentions, concluded that the orders of termination terminating the services of the workmen were illegal. Before the Labour Court one workman was examined in support of the case of the workmen and an attested copy of the list, showing the names of 82 employees, which included the respondent workmen, was placed on record. On behalf of the appellant management, one Executive engineer, namely, Shri Bharat Mishra was examined. The Labour Court placed reliance on the evidence of the workmen and also the attested copy of the list prepared by the office of the management containing 82 names of employees, which included the respondent workmen. The Labour Court also noticed that on October 29, 1997, the appellant took time to produce other witnesses on November 18, 1997, but, no witness was produced. It is also recorded in the order that there was no denial of the certificate produced by the workmen. As regards the oral evidence of the Executive engineer examined on behalf of the appellant, it is noticed that he was not working during the relevant period, inasmuch as he was working since August 1, 1985, that is long after the termination of services of the workmen. The high Court in the impugned judgment, having considered the contentions urged on behalf of the parties, did not find any good ground or a valid reason to differ from the findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court. One more contention was urged before the High Court i. e. that the reference made by the State government after 19 years could not have been entertained. The High Court did not accept that contention. Hence, by the impugned judgment the High Court affirmed the award passed by the Labour Court.

( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Labour Court was not right and justified in acting upon the attested copy of the list in the absence of original record produced; the evidence of the Executive engineer examined on behalf of the appellant could not have been ignored. The learned counsel emphasised that the reference made after a long delay of almost 19 years was not proper; it being stale, the dispute did not exist on the date of reference.

( 3 ) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent workmen in his arguments supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the position of law, as regards making a reference of a dispute, is well settled by the decisions of this Court. According to the learned counsel, merely because there was delay in raising the dispute, reference itself was not incompetent; it is for the appropriate government to make a reference on being satisfied as to the existence of the dispute; assuming that there is a delay in raising the dispute, that itself is not a ground to deny the relief to the workmen, but, depending on the facts and circumstances, the relief could be moulded. He added that this plea that the reference was not competent after delay of 19 years, was not raised before the Labour Court at all; for the first time it was urged before the high Court. He also pointed out