ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

The legal issues involved in this petition is "Whether appropriate Government can refuse to make a Reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on the ground of delay and latches? Whether the Government can take up the role of Adjudicating Authority while deciding the question as to whether a Reference be made or not?"

2. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 by which the appropriate Government has refused to make Reference to the Labour Court on the ground of raising the dispute after 24 years of termination.

3. The petitioner/workman herein raised an industrial dispute contending that he was engaged as 'Beldar' on 01.02.1985 and worked on that post till 28.12.1986. His attendance was marked in muster rolls and he has worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year but on 28.12.1986 his services were terminated orally without any notice or payment of one month's wages. It was pleaded that no seniority list was prepared. Hence, his services were terminated against the provision of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). The case of the petitioner is that he was illiterate and he requested the respondent/employer to reinstate him back in service but except assurance no steps were taken for getting him back in service.

4. The reconciliation proceedings were conducted between the parties but both parties decided to stick to their stands, hence, the reconciliation failed on 27.06.2011 before the Labour Industrial Jaipur Region, who referred the matter to the appropriate Government to proceed further vide its letter dated 19.07.2011.

5. The appropriate Government refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal on the ground of delay and latches as the dispute was referred after a delay of 24 years and no reasonable explanation of this inordinate delay was given by the workman, hence, the claim was treated as 'Stale Claim' vide impugned order dated 19.12.2011.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.12.2011, the petitioner has submitted this petition before this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no limitation has been prescribed under the Act of 1947 for raising the industrial dispute and seeking reference under the Act. Counsel submits that the provision under Article 137 of the LIMITATION ACT are not applicable upon the applications submitted under the Act of 1947. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-op. Marketing-Cum-Processing Service Society Limited reported in 1999(2) SCT 667.

2. Raghubir Singh v. General Manager , Haryana Roadways reported in 2014 (10) SCC 301

7. Heard and considered the submissions.

8. Perusal of the material available on the record indicates that by passing the impugned order dated 19.12.2011, the appropriate Government has refused to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground of delay and treated the dispute of the petitioner as 'Stale Claim'.

9. Before proceeding further to deal with the issue in question it would be gainful to quote the relevant provision contained under Section 10 of the Act of 1947 which deals with Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts and Tribunal. Section 10 reads as under:

"10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts