SHARMA, J. - (1.) INSTANT special appeal has been filed challenging the order dated October 16, 2001 of learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of the appellant seeking reference of the dispute in regard to his termination was dismissed.
(2.) WE have pondered over the rival submissions and scanned the material on record. It appears that the appellant had worked as Helper in the office of Superintending Engineer, Field Machinery Division, CAD Chambal Workshop Kota from April, 1984 to July 31, 1988. After the termination the appellant raised dispute before the Conciliation Officer Kota, who sent its failure report on June 3, 1994. The respondent No. 1 vide order dated July 12, 1995 declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground of delay. Learned Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claim of the appellant could not have been rejected on the ground of delay. Reliance is placed on Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U. P. State Electricity Board (2001 LLR 900 ). In Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U. P. State Electricity Board (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court had occasion to interpret Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was indicated that the words `at any time' as used in the section are prima facie indicator to a period without boundary. Their Lordships propounded that reference should not have been quashed merely on the ground of delay. Long delay for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities while moulding its relief. In Sapan Kumar Pandit's case (supra) the State Government of UP made a reference of industrial dispute for adjudication after a period of 15 years and because of the inordinate delay the High Court of Allahabad quashed the reference order passed by the Government solely on the ground of such delay. The aggrieved workman thereafter approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad. There Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment observed as under:- " There are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute, if no body had kept the dispute alive during the long interval it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanized by the workmen or the Union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wan into total eclipse. "
(3.) IN the instant case the dispute does not cease to exist and reference ought not to have been declined merely on the ground of delay. We find under these circumstances the impugned order of learned Single Judge as well as the order dated July 12, 1995 passed by respondent No. 1 contrary to the ratio laid down in the judgment of Sapan Kumar Pandit's case (supra ). Consequently, we allow the instant appeal and set aside the order dated October 16, 2001 of the learned Single Judge and the order dated July 12, 1995 passed by respondent No. 1. We direct the respondent No. 1 to refer the dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court. There shall be no order as to costs. .;