The main legal point established is that the pursuit of remedy by the workman and the cause for the delay in making the reference are crucial in determining the limitation for making a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The two writ petitions relate to the same award passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, one at the instance of the workman rejecting reference on the ground of limitation and another at the instance of the management, against the finding that the termination was bad and in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. The admitted case is that the workman had worked as a Pump Operator from 01.09.1978 to 14.09.1987. On 15.09.1987, he had absented himself and on the same day, a notice was purported to have been issued by the management directing him to join duty. Yet another notice was alleged to have been issued on 21.09.1987 warning him of the consequences that if he did not attend his duty within a period of 10 days, he will be deemed to have been relieved from duties due to his willful absence from duty. Securing no response from the workman for all these notices alleged to have been sent, a letter of termination dismissing the employee was made on 27.01.1988.

3. The above letter of termination was subject of dispute when a reference had been made to the Labour Court in the year 1989, but it was withdrawn at the instance of the workman on a plea that the petition had some technical flaws and he issued a demand notice again before filing fresh written statement which was the subject of reference in the year 1994, subsequent to the demand notice in the year 1993.

4. Before the Labour Court, it was contended on behalf of the management that the reference sought at the instance of the workman in the year 1994 for alleged termination in the year 1987 was belated and barred by limitation. The other line of defence was that the workman himself voluntarily abandoned the services and the termination took effect after the failure of the workman to respond to the notices and therefore, there is no scope for treating the termination to be bad.

5. As regards the contention that the reference was bad and barred by limitation, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman would state that the order of termination had been made on 27.01.1988 and the demand had been made within a period of one year and reference was also made within a period of one year. When it was withdrawn on 08.01.1993, a fresh demand notice had been issued immediately on 24.04.1993 and the reference was made in the year, 1994. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, he had been pursuing his remedy without any let-up and it could not be stated that he had remained lax to characterize the reference as unduly belated. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the management refers to the decision of this Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Babu Ram, 2006(3) SCT 486, that even a lapse of long time of 4-5 years would result in a workman losing his remedy under the Act. It must, however, be pointed out that the Honble Supreme Court itself in the same judgment had observed that no formula of universal application could be laid down as to limitation for making a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Honble Court also specifically held that a Court which decides the issue must look for the causes or the justification offered for such delay. If the law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court were to be applied, it shall not be merely the length of period that would determine whether a reference was within time or not but the decision would follow the cause for the delay. I have already outlined above as to how right from the time of his termination on 27.01.1988, the workman was pursuing his remedy and the delay that had been occasioned was only on account of seeking a reference and not pursuing the case before the Labour Court when he was compelled to withdraw for some technical flaws and a fresh reference was again made consequent on a demand notice which was issued within one month from the date when the first reference was withdrawn. Although no specific reasons are available as