( 1 ) FACTS are brief and undisputed it will be useful to state these facts first:- Petitioner was employed as chowkidar in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as mcd for short) school in Khera Kalan, Delhi on 2. 12. 1985. His services were terminated on 25. 2. 1992. He kept quite and did not challenge his termination for long. However in April 1996 he started making representations to the Office of Chief Minister, Delhi. Private Secretary of Chief Minister wrote to Director of Primary Education, MCD for taking sympathetic view. But, no favourable response was received. This all happened in the year 1996. Thereafter on 20/02/1997 petitioner raised alleged dispute by filing statement of claim before Conciliation Officer, in the Office of Labour Commissioner, Rajpur Road, Delhi. MCD was summoned and it filed its reply showing inability to reinstate the petitioner. Conciliation proceedings accordingly ended in failure. Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report. Thereafter impugned order dated 15/06/1998 was passed refusing to refer the matter for adjudication. This was sent to petitioner by covering letter dated 2/09/1998. Aggrieved against this refusal petitioner filed the present writ petition in which he has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 15/06/1998 with direction to the respondent No. 1 namely, National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "nct of Delhi", for short) through Secretary (Labour) for referring the matter for adjudication to appropriate Labour Court/industrial Tribunal.

( 2 ) IN the impugned order dated 15/06/1998 it is stated that Secretary (Labour) had perused all the documents filed before it and submissions of the management as well as the report of the Conciliation Officer (hereinafter referred to as co , for short) and found that this is not a fit case for reference to Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court of Delhi for adjudication for the reasons given below: -

"cause of action arose on 25. 3. 92 when services of Shri Dharambir Singh are alleged to have been terminated by the management whereas the statement of the claim filed on 20. 2. 97 i. e. after a gap of four years, ten months and 26 days the claim is highly time barred. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order on the ground that merely because there was delay in raising the dispute, it cannot be a ground to refuse to make reference. It is submitted by the petitioner that law of limitation is not applicable to matters under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as id Act , for short ). No period of limitation is prescribed even under the Act. He has also referred to certain judgments in support of his contention that reference could not be refused on the ground of delay. I will refer to these judgments at appropriate stage.

( 4 ) THE sole question, therefore, to be decided is as to whether appropriate Government could refuse to make reference of the dispute on the ground of delay. It may be stated that the question is of utmost importance as it is seen that many times, as in the instant case, the workers raise dispute after number of years of the cause of action. Whether the dispute can still be treated as surviving? Or whether it can be said that there is a no "dispute" when the concerned workmen after his, say termination, kept quite for number of years and thus acquiesced into the action?

( 5 ) BEFORE I proceed to deal with the aforesaid questions it would be proper to discuss the power of "appropriate Government" under Section 10 of the ID Act in referring or refusing to refer the dispute or adjudication. It is a peculiar position provided under that ID Act that an aggrieved workman cannot approach the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal directly for adjudication of "industrial dispute". He has to seek reference of dispute to Labour Court/industrial Tribunal) under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act. "appropriate Government" as defined under