This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 268/2001 whereby the appellant's writ application has been dismissed and thereby the award under challenge in the said writ application rendered in Reference Case No. 1211987 and M.J. Case No. 1/88 has been affirmed and upheld.

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal is that the appellant was employed as a Progress Supervisor in the respondent-Company-M/S TELCO. He was served with a charge sheet dated 19.11.74 arising out of an alleged theft of two numbers of H.R.C. Fuse and 61 numbers of Welding Rods amounting to Rs. 830/-. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. There was a domestic enquiry and on the basis of the enquiry report the appellant's services were terminated on 15.11.74. The same was disputed by the appellant and he demanded his reinstatement on 30.5.75, which was forwarded to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur. On 5.12.75. The under Secretary of Labour Department. Government of Bihar declared the dismissal order to be valid one. According to the appellant he thereafter made a fresh application before the Labour Commissioner for recommendation of his case on 17.12.75, followed by several reminders up to 11.12.76. The Deputy Commissioner (Labour), Jamshedpur then asked the General Manager of the respondent No.2 to appear in the conciliation proceeding. The conciliation proceeding ended in a failure report and by notification dated 14.4.87 the Government of Bihar, Labour Employment and Training Department, issued Notification dated 14.4.87 under Section 11 (1)(C) of the Industrial Dispute Act 1947 for adjudication. The term of reference reads thus:

"Whether the termination of services of Sri Kauleshwar Sharma, Progress Supervisor, TELCO, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" The said reference after adjudication was answered by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur by its award dated 1.7.2000. In course of the adjudication the learned Labour Court formulated the following four points for consideration and adjudication:

(i) Whether the Reference is valid and competent and whether the reference case is maintainable before this Court.

(ii) Whether the charges levelled against Shri Kauleshwar Sharma stand established?

(iii) Whether the charge sheeting authority and punishing authority had the necessary power in disciplinary matter?

(iv) Whether the dismissal of Shri Kauleshwar Sharma is justified or not and whether he is entitled to any relief?

3. The learned Labour Court after thorough consideration of the facts and the law held (i) that the dispute which was been referred was already refused by the Government in the year 1 9 ~ and the same has been again referred to this Court after gap of long period of 12 years which is totally incompetent and thus reference case is not maintainable; (ii) in view of the non-maintainability of the award no finding was required to be given on the merit of the .case. The reference case was thus held to be not maintainable.

4. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant filed a writ application being C.W.J.C. No.268/2001. Both the parties were heard by the learned Single Judge at length. The learned Single Judge in view of the controversy raised by the parties formulated three question.

(i) Whether the Labour Court can examine the staleness of the Reference and can dispose of the reference holding that it is non-maintainable

(ii) Whether the Labour Court is required to answer all the issues and

(iii) Whether the High Court can interfere with the Impugned award?

5. After detailed discussion and consideration of facts, documents and materials on record and law, the learned Single Judge recorded the following findings:

(i) The reference was refused by the Government and communicated to the petitioner under the order of the Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Labour and Employment,