ORDER :

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this writ petition and -

(a) by issue of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quash and set aside the impugned award dated 27.08.2015 (Annexure-1) passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur and grant the reliefs as prayed for by the Petition in his statement of claim and direct the Respondents to take the Petitioner in service with all consequential benefits of continuity in service and payment of all consequential benefits from the date of his termination from service i.e. 2/12/1989;

(b) award costs of this writ petition to the Petitioners; and

(c) award such other further relief/s, as may be deemed just and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the present so as to give full relief to the Petitioner."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without any notice, services of the petitioner were terminated by the respondents in violation of Section 2 5f of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947. Counsel further submits that the petitioner raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court but the statement of the claim filed by him has been rejected on the ground that the dispute has been raised after a lapse of more than 19 years. Counsel submits that the Labour Court should not have rejected the application for statement of the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay, hence, the interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar.

4. Perusal of the record indicates that the date of termination is 01.09.1990 and no dispute was raised by the petitioner immediately after passing of the said order and the same was raised after a lapse of 19 years and 6 months. The impugned award indicates that the petitioner has not completed 240 days in a calendar year.

5. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Anr., reported in (2015)15 SCC 1 has held that stale claims should not be generally encouraged and allowed unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay. Hon'ble Apex Court held that if the dispute against termination is raised belatedly and the delay or laches remains unexplained, it would be presumed that the workman has waived his right against his termination. And the dispute raised after delay of 14 years was not entertained by recording the following reasoning in para nos. 34 to 41, 42.2, 42.3, 42.6, 44 and 45 as under:

34) To understand the meaning of the word 'dispute', it would be appropriate to start with the grammatical or dictionary meaning of the term:

'Dispute': "to argue about, to contend for, to oppose by argument' to call in question-to argue or debate (with about or over),-a contest with words; an argument; a debate; a quarrel;

35) Black's law dictionary, 5th Edition, page 424 defines 'dispute' as under:

"Dispute-A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an assertion of a right, claim or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on the other. The subject of litigation; the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which issue is joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses examined."

36) Thus, a dispute or difference arises when demand is made by one side (i.e. workmen) and rejected by the other side (i.e. the employer) and vice versa. Hence an 'industrial dispute' cannot be said to exist until and unless the demand is made by the workmen and it has been rejected by the employer. How such demand should be raised and at what stage may also be relevant but we are not concerned with this aspect in the instant case. Therefore, what would happen if no demand is made at all at the time when the cause of action arises? In other words, like in the instant case, what would be the consequence if after the termination of the services of petitioner on