A.K. Patnaik, C.J.

1. This is a reference made to the Full Bench pursuant to the order dated21-8-2001 passed by the learned Single Judge in the present writ petition on interpretation of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act').,

2. The facts as stated in the order dated 21-8-2001 of the learned Single Judge are that the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) by its letter dated 23-2-1995 contending inter alia that 152 contract workers deserve to be regularised and by not doing so, the Management has committed a gross illegality. The conciliation proceeding failed and the Conciliation Authority submitted a failure report dated 15-12-1995 to the Central Government. The Central Government by its order dated 27-12-1996 declined to make the reference on the ground that the respondent No. 2 Union failed to give any documentary evidence to prove that the workmen in question were engaged directly by the Management of the SECL and the dispute had been raised belatedly after 11 years and the Union had failed to give any justification for the inordinate delay. The respondent No. 2 challenged the order dated 27-12-1996 of the Central Government in W.P. No. 3088 of 1998 before this Court and the learned Single Judge held in his order dated 14-1-2000 that the order passed by the Central Government was unsustainable and directed the Central Government to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after applying its mind within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order of the Court. Thereafter, the Central Government passed a fresh order dated 11-4-2000 referring the following dispute to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur:

Whether the action of the management of M/s. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. in not regularising the services of 152 contract workers (list enclosed) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled?

3. Aggrieved by the order dated 11-4-2000 of the Central Government, the petitioner management filed the present writ petition contending that the dispute referred to the Industrial Tribunal was a stale one as the 152 contract workers were removed in the year 1984 and the dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer in the year 1995. In support of this contention, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors. .

4. The respondent No. 2 on the other hand, contended before the learned Single Judge inter alia that in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 82, the Supreme Court has taken a view that a plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and this can only be done by the employer before the Industrial Tribunal and that the order of reference made by the Government under Section 10(1) of the Act, therefore, should not be quashed by the Court. The respondent No. 2 also relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Anand Kumar Dubey v. Union of India and Ors. 2000(3) MPLJ 461, and a decision of a learned Single Judge in Ramsewak v. Union of India and Ors. W.P. No. 3695 of 2000, decided on 29-3-2001 in which refusal on the part of the appropriate Government to make a reference on the ground that the dispute was a belated one had been held to be bad.

5. After considering the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 and the decisions cited by them, the learned Single Judge observed in Paragraph 6 of the order dated 21-8-2001 that the core question that falls for consideration is whether stale claims can be rejected by the Central Government on the ground that the Industrial Dispute does not exist, and in Paragraph 12 of the order, further observed that this was an important question of law, which should be adjudicated by a Larger