( 1 ) BY this common judgment I would dispose of the aforementioned two writ petitions, as a common question of law in regard to ambit and scope of powers of the appropriate Government to make or decline a reference under Section 10 (1 ) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as Act), arises for consideration, though on somewhat different facts.

( 2 ) IN order to examine the question of law which requires consideration by the Court, it will be appropriate to refer to the facts of Subhash Chand (Supra) at the very outset, while reference to the facts of the other writ petition could be made towards the later part of the judgment. Subhash Chand, the workman joined the service with Horticulture Department in the Office of Development commissioner of Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 20th September, 1987 as a Mali. His services were treated as daily rated muster roll worker. According to the workman, respondent No. 2 arbitrarily terminated the services of the petitioner without giving any notice, compensation, holding any inquiry and following the rules even in regard to last come first go on 30-th November, 1990. In the writ petition it is stated that workman was poor and illiterate. He requested the authorities to take him back into service on different occasions and thereafter he served a legal demand notice on 26th November, 1997 upon the respondent no. 2 calling upon him to reinstate the workman with continuity in service and full back wages. Respondent No. 2 did not react to the notice of the workman as such the workman filed his statement of claim in December 1997 before the conciliation Officer. On 6. 2. 1998, respondent No. 2 filed its reply before the conciliation Officer denying the allegations to which another explanation was filed by the workman wherein he explained the cause of delay in approaching the Conciliation Officer. According to the workman he could not report for duty from December 1990 to 1993 on account of illness and domestic problems. He was a very poor and illiterate person who was made to run from pillar to post for getting his job and as a result of some false assurances given, he had not taken the action prior to 26th November, 1997, the date on which he served the legal demand notice. On 13th May, 1998, the workman also filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the Management and finally vide order dated 13th October, 1998, respondent No. 2, i. e. , the appropriate Government rejected the request of the workman and declined to make a reference. The order declining reference reads as under:

"admittedly cause of action arose on 30. 11. 1990 when services of Shri subhash were alleged to have been terminated by the management whereas statement of claim has been filed on 15. 12. 1997 i. e. after a gap of more than 7 years. Thus the claim is highly belated. "

( 3 ) AFTER waiting for some time, again on 6. 3. 2000 the workman filed an application for review of the order dated 13th October, 1998 referring to the various judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Courts on various aspects and stating that the reference prayed for by the workman could not be declined by the Government on the plea of limitation and it was a matter which fell within the domain and jurisdiction of the Labour Court. This application was also rejected by the appropriate Government vide its order dated 14th september, 2000 which was communicated to the workman. The order reads as under :

"the President, Delhi Prashasan Vikas Vibhag Industrial Employees Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G. T. Road, Tis Hazari, Delhi-54 sub : Request for review of rejection of reference in case of Sh. Subhash v. Horticulture Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide order No. F-24 (3572)/98- lab. Dated 13-10-1998. Sir, With reference to above, I am directed to inform you that application filed by you. for review of order dated 13. 10. 1998 is carefully examined and considered in this office. Case laws cited in the application are also t