A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the challenge to the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara dated 17.02.2017 in Reference (IT) No.240 of 2014 has been negatived. The learned Single Judge has rejected the petition by observing that the dispute has been raised belatedly after a delay of 14 years.

2. The facts in brief are as under;

The appellant-Union raised an industrial dispute in the year 2014 and vide order dated 07.07.2014 the appropriate Government referred the same to the Industrial Tribunal. The case of the workman was that he was appointed on a Class-IV post as a Sepoy vide order dated 12.06.1999 instead of being appointed on a Class-III post as a Junior Clerk. The Industrial Tribunal, after examining the issue in detail, rejected the Reference, vide order dated 17.02.2017 by observing that the dispute had been raised belatedly after a delay of 14 years. The same was further challenged in the writ petition and by order dated 14.08.2017, the petition is rejected by the learned single Judge by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota V/s. Mohan Lal, reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543.

3. Learned advocate Mr. R.D. Raval appearing on behalf of the appellant-Union has vehemently argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the correct position of law. He has stated that the law of limitation does not apply in the same manner as it applies to the civil matters. He has submitted that the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”, for short) does not provide for dismissal of a dispute on the ground of delay and that in a situation where a reference has been made, proper decision on merits has to be given by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. He has asserted that both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge have wrongly applied the principle of delay and laches since the application was one filed u/s.10(1)(c) of the Act. He has further submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly appreciated the judgment rendered in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit V/s. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 222 and has incorrectly applied the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal (supra).

3.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval has further submitted that the respondent-Corporation had never resisted the making of reference on the ground of delay at the initial stage. Hence, it was not open for the respondent-Corporation to raise such an issue at a subsequent stage. Mr. Raval has also contended that the matter should have been decided on merits and that the workman should have been granted relief by moulding it since he was working as a Junior Clerk and his Department had been taking clerical work from him. He has stated that the workman was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 30.12.2015 after following proper procedure.

3.2 Mr. Raval further contended that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge is with regard to termination and therefore, it would not apply to the case of the workman as the dispute pertains to appointment. Hence, the relief could have been suitably moulded by granting him notional benefits and denying the actual benefits. He has further submitted that the workman was entitled to be appointed on the Class-III post of Junior Clerk as he was H.S.C. Pass with 62% marks. He has drawn attention of this Court to the Circular dated 23.09.1985 issued by the respondent-Corporation laying down the policy for compassionate appointment. He has submitted that the respondent-Corporation is mixing up the issue of appointment of the workman on compassionate ground and appointment on direct recruitment basis on the post of Junior Clerk. He has submitted that as per the Circular dated 23.09.1985, the requisite cr