Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—The respondent-workman was engaged as a Ward Boy on 2nd December, 1973. On account of a misconduct committed by him, an inquiry was instituted against him, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order of termination dated 26th June, 1982. The workman did not stir in the matter and kept silent for 22 years and, eventually, filed an application by raising an industrial dispute in the year 2004, which was numbered as C.P. Case No. 130 of 2004. The Assistant Labour Commissioner after inviting objections from the employer and, after hearing the parties, declined to refer the dispute and consigned the matter to the records on the ground that on account of the delay made by the workman it was not expedient to refer the dispute. The workman, being aggrieved, by the said decision filed an appeal before the Labour Commissioner which was also rejected by an order dated 4th August, 2005. Thereafter a review application was filed by the workman before the Assistant Labour Commissioner which was also rejected by an order dated 3rd August, 2006.

2. It transpires that the workman filed a fresh application which was numbered as C.P. Case No. 105 of 2008 and, on this application, the State Government, by an order dated 26th August, 2008, referred the matter to the Labour Court-IInd, Kanpur for adjudication of the dispute. The terms of the reference order was some what like this:

“whether the employers were justified in terminating the services of the workman with effect from 26th June, 1982? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to”.

3. The petitioner, namely, the employer, being aggrieved by the decision of the State Government in referring the dispute has filed the present writ petition contending that there was undue delay in raising the reference and that such an old and stale dispute could not be referred as it was neither expedient to refer a dispute especially when there was no industrial dispute existing nor was it apprehended. It was also urged that when the application of the workman was rejected on three earlier occasions and in the absence of any fresh material coming on record, no industrial dispute could be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. It was also argued that no reason was given by the State Government while referring the dispute.

4. It was contended that no industrial dispute existed nor any industrial dispute was apprehended and, therefore, the reference of a dispute, after 22 years from the date of the cause of action, was wholly arbitrary, illegal and consequently, the reference order was liable to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, the workman contended that Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) clearly contemplates that where the State Government is of the opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time refer a dispute to a Labour Court or to a Tribunal for adjudication of that dispute. It was consequently, contended that the words “at any time” indicates that there is no period of limitation attached to the raising of a dispute and that a dispute could be referred at any moment of time. It was also contended that the delay in raising the reference can only be a mitigating factor while moulding the relief by the Labour Court or Tribunal with regard to reinstatement or with regard to back wages, in the event, the claim of the workman was allowed.

6. It was contended that the State Government while referring a dispute, does not adjudicate the matter on merit nor any right of the employer is affected, if a dispute is referred. The right of either of the parties is only affected when the dispute so referred is decided.

7. In support of their stand, the learned counsel for the parties placed a plethora of decisions in support of their submissions which will be considered and dealt with hereinafter at the appropriate place.

8. In this regard, the Court has heard Sri Chandra