Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. These two writ applications arise out of an award dated 17th April, 1988 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad, in reference case No. 65 of 1987 and as such they were with consent of the parties taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. In view of the points involved in these writ applications, it is not necessary to state the fact of the matter in great details. Suffice it to say that the concerned workmen were appointed at the Barauni Refinery Project of M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited at the construction stage as also at the operation stage. The construction stage continued till the operational unit was about to be commissioned for which 25,00 employees in different categories and in different pay scales were recruited consisting mainly of deputationists from the Central Government and the State Government as also the new entrants. At the construction stage, Civil, Mechanical and Electrical jobs were involved with regard to erection of various plants and limits. The employees who were involved in the construction work were to get construction allowance varying between 20% and 25% of their basic pay in terms of Circular No. 14, dated 30-5-1960 issued by the Management. According to the workmen, construction allowance was payable both to permanent and temporary staff but the permanent employees who were appointed after 1963 had been deprived of the said benefit. Admittedly by notification dated 16-11-1965 the said policy of payment of construction allowance was abolished. It is the further case of the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 1250 of 1988(R) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Union) that in the year 1969 another Union, namely, Shramik Vikash Parishad, raised a demand for payment of construction allowance, which having been rejected by the Management, culminated in a reference made by the State of Bihar being Reference No. 15 of 1972 wherein an award was made in favour of the workmen, by an award dated 10-6-1976 which is contained in Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Management in C.W.J.C. No. 1250 of 1988(R). The contention of the workmen is that despite the fact that the award was upheld by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2439 of 1976, the Management refused to implement the same and as such the instant demand was raised on or about 31-7-1979. The Central Government, being the appropriate Government, by a notification dated 23rd January, 1987 thereafter referred the dispute for adjudication to respondent No. 1 which is in the following terms ; Whether the action of the Management of Barauni Oil Refinery of the Indian Oil Corporation in not paying construction allowance to all the workmen who had joined the Barauni Refinery Project prior to the 1st November, 1965 is justified ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ? 3. The case of the Management on the other hand, inter alia, was that the reference was vague and stale. It was contended that cause of action for the reference arose in the year 1965 but as the same has been made in the year 1987, the workmen are not entitled to any relief at all, It was further contended that the Management had gravely been prejudiced by reason of the said reference inasmuch as it has been placed in a disadvantagious position as did not have all the relevant records as there was no statutory requirement to preserve the same. It was further contended that the reference itself is bad in law inasmuch as the Management and the Union had entered into a long term settlement in terms whereof the Union agreed not to raise any demand which would put financial burden on the Management. The Management, on merits of the case, however, submitted that the construction of Barauni Oil Refinery commenced in 1959 and was over in 1963. Normally the daily rated employees were engaged in the construction work. However, when the construction work was substantially over and production in the Refinery commenced, the Management began to appoint permanent employees fixing their scales of pay and other benefits at par with other Public Sector Undertakings. It was submitted that the construction allowances used to be given at a point of time, whence the workmen, could not be provided with the basic civic amenities like markets, transportation, housing etc., but at a latter stage when all those amenities became available, the question of continuing to grant construction allowances to the permanent employees did not arise. It was submitted that the construction allowances used to be given at a point of time, whence the workmen, could not be provided with the basic civic amenities like markets, transportation, housing etc., but at a latter stage when all those amenities became available, the question of continuing to grant construction allowances to the permanent employees did not arise. It was further submitted that those workmen who were absorbed in the permanent services of the Management, the construction allowances payable to them were merged in their pay and thus by claiming construction allowance once over again, the said workmen seek to get double benefits. It was further submitted that even in the appointment letters issued to all such employees, it has specifically been stated that they would not be entitled to any construction allowance. 4. The learned Tribunal below formulated two questions for its consideration: (i) Whether the construction allowance be paid to all the workmen who had joined the Barauni Refinery Project prior to 1-12-1965 ; and (ii) Whether the reference is too stale. 5. Respondent No. 1 upon consideration of the materials placed on the records of the case came to the conclusion that the Management was bound to pay the construction allowances also to those employees who joined the Barauni Refinery Project prior to 1955 in its permanent set up. Respondent No. 1 in arriving at the said finding relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Damodar Valhy Corporation V/s. Workmen 1973 (Vol. II) LLJ 136. With regard to second question, the tribunal below held that the Union has not been able to explain the delay and as the reference is stale, the workmen are not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 6. In C.W.J.C. No. 1250 of 1988 (R), the Union has questioned that part of the impugned award dated 17th April, 1988, whereby respondent No. 1 had refused to any relief to the workmen on the ground that their demand was stale. C.W.J.C. No. 1760 of 1988 (R) has been filed by the Management questioning the other part of the impugned award whereby it has been held that the Management was bound to pay construction allowances to the permanent staff of the Barauni. Oil Refinery Project who were appointed prior to 1-12-1965. 7. Mr. C.W.J.C. No. 1760 of 1988 (R) has been filed by the Management questioning the other part of the impugned award whereby it has been held that the Management was bound to pay construction allowances to the permanent staff of the Barauni. Oil Refinery Project who were appointed prior to 1-12-1965. 7. Mr. V. N. Sahay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 1250 of 1988 (R) raised three contentions in support of this application. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that from a persual of the deposition of M. W. 2 (Harish Chandra Prasad) as contained in Annexure-2, it would appear that it has been admitted by the Management that demand was raised for payment of construction allowance by Shramik Vikash Parishad and the conciliation proceeding initiated on the basis of the said demand having resulted in failure, the present industrial dispute was raised on behalf of the workmen which ultimately has been referred to by the Central Government. According to the learned Counsel, as a dispute had already been raised by the aforesaid Shramik Vikash Parishad in the year 1969, respondent No. 1 must be held to have misdirected itself in holding that the demand of the workmen was stale. Learned Counsel next contended that in view of the fact that the Patna High Court in the aforementioned writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 2439 of 1976 upheld the award of the State Industrial Tribunal in Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 on 8-3-1979, it was expected of the Management, that it being a Public Sector Undertaking and thus a model employer would implement the said award in letter and spirit resulting in grant of construction allowance to all those employees who were similarily situated but as the Management failed to do so, the instant demand was raised by the Union by letter dated 31-7-1979. Learned Counsel next contended that respondent No. 1 in arriving at its decision has completely misconstrued and misinterpreted the award passed in the aforementioned reference case No. 15 of 1972 and further failed to take into consideration the statements made by the Union to the effect that numerous demands had been raised by the concerned workmen, both individually and collectively. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision in Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd., Jaipur V/s. B.D. Harsha and Anr. Learned Counsel relied upon a decision in Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd., Jaipur V/s. B.D. Harsha and Anr. 1978 Lab 1C 761 and submitted that in any event, as the Central Government, being the appropriate Government, has referred the dispute for adjudication, to respondent No. 1, it having acted within its jurisdiction, respondent No. 1 could not have refused to grant relief in favour of the workmen on the ground of alleged staleness of claim. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon in Rraptakos, (supra) and in Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. V/s. Subharayan 1984 Lab IC 1880; Ithad Motor Transport (P.) Ltd. V/s. Bir Singh and Ors., 1974 2 LLJ 243 ; B. R. Herman and Mohatta (India) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. The Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Ors. 1977 Lab 1C, (NOC) 13 (CAL). 8. Mr. K.N. Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Management on the other hand submitted that the dispute raised by the Sharamik Vikash Parishad resulting in the State of Bihars making a reference has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of this case as the said reference was in relation to an individual employee and thereby the tribunal was not called upon to adjudicate the dispute in question which has been raised by the Union. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent No. 1 having arrived at a finding of fact that the Union has not been able to explain the delay of 14 years in raising the demand, the said finding cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the Union has failed to show that respondent No. 1 in arriving at the said finding either committed any error of law or error of record. Learned Counsel further submitted that although there is no doubt that there is no period of limitation for raising an industrial dispute or for reference thereof by an appropriate Government but not only the appropriate Government in a given case may refuse to refer the dispute which has become stale but also the Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, as the case may be, may refuse to grant relief to the concerned workmen on that ground. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Shalimar Works Limited V/s. Their Workmen -- ; Inder Singh and Sons, Ltd. V/s. Their Workmen 1961 (Vol. II) LLJ 89 and K.V. Joseph V/s. Peirce Leslie India Ltd. and Ors. 1970 FJR 458. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that the very fact that the demand was a stale one and the Management does not have with it the relevant records, it must be held to have been seriously prejudiced by reasons of the delay in raising the dispute. In support of the writ application filed by the Management, it was submitted that in view of the fact that there has been a long standing settlement entered into by and between the Management and the Union to the effect that no demand would be raised except bonus whereby the Management would be put to financial burden, the Union being bound by the said settlement, the reference made by Central Government itself is vitiated in law. Learned Counsel in this connection has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Barauni Refinery P.S. Parishad V/s. Indian Oil Corporation Limited 1990 Lab IC 1481. Learned Counsel further submitted that respondent No. 1 has committed serious illegality in arriving at the finding that the workmen were entitled to the payment of "construction allowances relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in D. V. Cs. case (supra), inasmuch as the fact of the matter in the said decision and in the instant case are wholly different. It was further submitted that the permanent employees cannot be equated with the employees who were appointed at a point of time whence no amenity could be given to them, whereas permanent employees had been employed at a point of time when the production was to commence or had already commenced and thus all basic amenities could be made available; to them. Learned Counsel further submitted that those employees who had been working at the construction stage were absorbed by the Management on merger of the construction allowance in their basic scale of pay and thus the said workmen could not have claimed double benefits in the shape of construction allowance once over again. Learned Counsel further submitted that those employees who had been working at the construction stage were absorbed by the Management on merger of the construction allowance in their basic scale of pay and thus the said workmen could not have claimed double benefits in the shape of construction allowance once over again. It was further submitted that if any relief is granted to the workmen at this stage, the same would not be conducive of industrial peace inasmuch as most of the workmen have now retired and thus the same would give rise to fresh demands and fresh industrial disputes. 10. The questions, therefore, which arise for consideration in these applications are: (i) Whether respondent No. 1 committed an illegality in refusing to grant relief to the workmen only on the ground of alleged stateness of claim ? (ii) Whether the finding of respondent No. 1 to the effect that the Management was bound to pay construction allowance to all those employees who were appointed prior to 1-12-1965 is vitiated in law ? 11. Re : Point No. (i)-Certain basic facts are admitted. The construction of Barauni Oil Refinery Project started in the year 1960. The Management issued a circular letter dated 30th May, I960, which is contained in Annexure-2 C, W. J. C. No, 1760 of 1988 (R) which reads as follows ; It is notified for the general information of all concerned that the Board of Directorate, at the meeting held on 25-5-1959, has approved the grant of construction allowance to the company staff engaged at the sites of both the refineries, at Noonmati and Barauni, at the following rates: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pay Rates -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Below Rs. 275 25% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 20 p.m. In the case of staff of the lowest categories, such as peons and equivalent minimum is Rs. 15 p.m. Rs. 275 to 600 20% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 15 and maximum of Rs. 100. Rs. 1301 to 1640 Rs. 150 p.m. Rs. 1650 and above Equal to the amount by which pay falls short of Rs. 1799. 15 p.m. Rs. 275 to 600 20% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 15 and maximum of Rs. 100. Rs. 1301 to 1640 Rs. 150 p.m. Rs. 1650 and above Equal to the amount by which pay falls short of Rs. 1799. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pay for the construction allowance shall as defined in Fundamental Ruler (21) the construction allowance will be payable only to permanent and temporary staff of the refineries who are appointed on the scales of pay prescribed in the company, and who are employed at the construction sites, except the following category of staff: (1) Employees employed by the Contractors. (2) Daily-rated employees engaged on consolidate wage rated e.g., on ad hoc scales of pay. (3) Work-Charge establishment. It should however be understood by all concerned that construction allowance will be admissible only during constructional stages of the refineries at Noonmati and Barauni and that this allowance will be temporary and be withdrawn at a date which will be notified later which will in any event he not later than the date the refineries at Noomati and Barauni respectively go on stream. 12. It is also admitted that the Management rescinded the said circular by reason of another circular dated 16-11-1965. In 1969, another Union, namely, Shramik Vikas Parishad raised an industrial dispute in relation to one Anant Ram resulting in a reference made by the State Government by notification dated 1st June, 1971, Inter alia, to the following effect: Whether Shri Anant Ram, Typist Clerk is entitled to construction allowance for the construction period of the factory ? If so, at what rate and for what period ? 13. By an award dated 10th June, 1976, passed in Reference No. 15 of 1972, Industrial Tribunal, Patna answered the aforementioned reference in favour of the workmen. The management thereafter questioned the legality of the aforementioned award in this Court in its writ jurisdiction being C.W.J.C. No. 2493 of 1976 which was eventally dismissed by a judgment dated 8-3-1977. On 31-7-1979, the dispute resulting in reference in question was raised by the Union for the first time. The Central Government, however, made considerable delay on its part to make the reference and a notification dated 23-1-1987 was issued by the Central Government making reference to question. On 31-7-1979, the dispute resulting in reference in question was raised by the Union for the first time. The Central Government, however, made considerable delay on its part to make the reference and a notification dated 23-1-1987 was issued by the Central Government making reference to question. Respondent No, 1 in his impugned award, inter alia, held that: (i) the dispute was raised by the concerned workmen after 14 years ; (ii) Although four witnesses were examined on behalf of the workmen, none of them explained the delay in making reference ; (iii) From the memorandum of settlement dated 1-5-1975 (Ext. M-1) ; 7-12-1974 (Ext. M-2) and 4-8-1983 (Ext. (M-3) it would appear that the workmen although raised various demands, with the management and settlement had been arrived at by and between the management and the petitioner Union from time, to time no demand was made in respect of non-payment of construction allowance prior to 1-12-1965 ; (iv) the dispute raised on behalf of Anant Ram was of a different nature and was in respect of an individual workmen. Thus the award passed in the aforementioned reference was wholly irrelevant. 14. There cannot be any doubt that no period of limitation has been prescribed under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act either for the purpose of making a reference by the appropriate Government in exercise of the power under Sec. 10 or for filing an application under Sec. 33-C(2) of the said Act. It is also well settled that an order of reference made by the appropriate Government is an administrative order. Thus, it is open to the appropriate Government to make a reference at any point of time. Reference in this conection may be made in Shambhu Nath Goyal V/s. Bank of Baroda 1978 Lab IC 961 and Avon Services Production Agencies V/s. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana 1979 Lab IC 1. The Supreme Court in Shalimar Works Limited V/s. Their Workmen -- : stated the law thus: It is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of disputes to an industrial tribunal ; even so it is only reasonable that dispute should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed particularly so when disputes relate to discharge of workmen wholesale. But where none of the workers did this, for almost three years, when the first reference was made, the tribunal would be justified in refusing the relief of reinstatement to avoid dislocation of the industry specially so when the reference was vague inasmuch as the names of 250 workmen to be reinstated were not sent to the Industrial Tribunal and no list of these men was given to it till practically after the whole proceeding was over. 15. In Inder Singh and Sons Limited (supra), the Supreme Court while considering matter arising out of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act held as follows: It is true that laws of limitation which might bar any civil court from giving remedy in respect of lawful rights are not and should not be applied by the industrial tribunals. On the other hand it is a well-accepted principle of industrial adjudication that over-stale claims should not generally be enouraged or allowed, unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after a long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect this is likely to have on the employers financial arrangements. Whether a claim has become too stale or not will depend on the circumstances of each case. In Neyveli Lignite Corporation V/s. Subhrayan 1984 Lab IC 1880, a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held: If at any stage, the appropriate Government is satisfied that it is desirable to make reference, that reference cannot be questioned merely on the ground of delay on the part of the employee. In K.V. Joseph (supra), a learned Single Judge of Kerala High Court held that: though there is no period of limitation for making a claim under Sec. 33-C (2), stale claims cannot be allowed as it would lead to undesirable results including financial anarchy and chaos in the industrial field. Unless there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the Labour Court should not entertain such claims especially when it would have far-reaching pecuniary consequences on the employers. Whether a claim has become stale or not depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down one way or the other. Yet recently, S.B. Sanyal, J., in Padam Chandra Jain and Anr. Whether a claim has become stale or not depends upon the facts of each case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down one way or the other. Yet recently, S.B. Sanyal, J., in Padam Chandra Jain and Anr. V/s. The Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-II, Central, Dhanbad and Ors. 1991 Lab IC 633 : held as follows: There is no absolute proposition of law that in no case relief could be granted merely because there is delay in raising the industrial dispute. It has, however, a strong bearing on the back wages payable by the employer in the event an order of reinstatement is passed. The Management cannot be made to suffer for the delay in raising the demand giving rise to the industrial dispute. On the part of appropriate Government there has also been delay in making the reference inasmuch as the reference was made to the Tribunal after three to four years of the raising of industrial dispute. From the conspectus of the decisions as noticed hereinbefore, the law appears to be well settled that whereas no period of limitation is prescribed in respect of an industrial claim, the Industrial Tribunal or the Labour Court should discourage over-stale claim unlesss satisfactory explanation therefor is given. It also appears to be well settled that in a case where the Management would be put to undue financial burden with far-reaching pecuniary consequences, such stale claim should not be entertained. 16. In this case, there is no dispute that demand was raised after a period of about 14 years. The question as to whether the Union has been able to explain the delay in raising the dispute satisfactorily or not is essentially a question of fact and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution shall not ordinarily interfere therewith unless the Court has committed jurisdictional error. As noticed hereinbefore the main plank of attack, so far as the finding of staleness in raising the dispute by respondent No. I is concerned, by Mr. Sahay is that the tribunal has not considered the statements made in the written statement of the workmen not has it considered the true import of the award passed in Reference Case No 15 of 1972. 17. The term of reference connected with Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 as seen hereinbefore related to an individual workman. The respondent NO. Sahay is that the tribunal has not considered the statements made in the written statement of the workmen not has it considered the true import of the award passed in Reference Case No 15 of 1972. 17. The term of reference connected with Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 as seen hereinbefore related to an individual workman. The respondent NO. 1 in connection with the aforetnentioned matter held as follows: It will appear from the facts of the said case that Anant Ram was appointed on 4-6-1964 as a Typist Clerk on temporary basis for six months and it was stated in his appointment letter that as construction allowance is admissible. He was paid construction allowance since March 1965 but it was stopped from the month of June, 1966 and Rs. 25 was recovered from his pay. An enquiry was made regarding the circumstances under which construction allowance was paid to him and was stopped as in his appointment letter he was not entitled to construction allowance. He made a representation to the General Manager stating that he was working against the post of Typist Clerk in the construction set up. He again made a representation to the effect that although under the appointment letter no construction allowance was admissible, it was not understood why he should be deprived of its benefit as his appointment was to a post in construction set up in Civil Engineering department as well as in the administrative department and junior typist clerks, junior clerks who were appointed about a year later in 1965 were getting construction allowance. According to him, the other Typist Clerks and Junior Clerks junior to him were given construction allowance because they were posted against construction set up post. On the above facts it was held by the Tribunal that Anant Ram was working at the site although transferred from one department to other and so construction allowance was payable to him from 31-10-1964 the date on which he was transferred to site till it was withdrawn by the management subject to the rate and condition of its manager in the basic pay as laid down in the letter dated 7-5-1966. The industrial dispute in Ext. The industrial dispute in Ext. W. 12 was in respect of an individual workman, namely, Anant Ram and he was claiming construction allowance on the footing that he was in the construction set up working at the construction site and that as his juniors appointed after were getting construction allowance he is also entitled to the construction allowance. It is apparent therefore that the dispute in Ext. W. 12 was in respect of individual on the ground which was "different from the ground in the present industrial dispute in respect of the workmen. 18. From the findings of respondent No. 1, therefore, it is evident that it took into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the Union and arrived at his finding upon consideration of all relevant materials that the dispute raised in Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 in effect and substance did not cover the demand for payment of construction allowance to the employees in general. So far as the submission of Mr. Sahay to the effect that the workmen did not raise the dispute prior to 31-7-1979 on the sole ground that the dispute had already been raised by another Union and the same shall be implemented does not appear to have any substance. Respondent No. 1 in his award categorically stated that although four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the workmen none of them explained the delay in raising the dispute. Nothing has been brought on records of this case by the workmen to show that the aforementioned finding of respondent No. 1 is in any way perverse or in arriving at the said finding, he has either committed any error of record or error of law. As noticed hereinbefore, a stale dispute is not to be encouraged unless satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in raising the dispute is furnished. It was, therefore, for the workmen to state in their evidence, the facts disclosing sufficient reasons explaining the delay in raising the dispute. As noticed hereinbefore, a stale dispute is not to be encouraged unless satisfactory explanation for the delay caused in raising the dispute is furnished. It was, therefore, for the workmen to state in their evidence, the facts disclosing sufficient reasons explaining the delay in raising the dispute. The question as to whether the workmen indeed were under the impression that the matter relating to payment of construction allowance is already pending decision in the aforementioned Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 and further it expected that the Management being a Public Sector Undertaking and thus being a model employer would implement the award passed therein, is essentially a matter of the state of mind of the concerned leaders of the Union. As none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the workmen stated on oath that a dispute prior to 31-7-1979 was not raised for the aforementioned reasons, the submission of Mr. Sahay cannot be accepted. Further, in my opinion, respondent No. 1 has also rightly relied upon various memorandums of settlements which are Exhibits M/1, M/2 and M/3 which clearly demonstrate that although various demands had been raised by the petitioner Union with the Management from time to time but it never took into consideration that the demand with regard to the non-payment of construction allowance to the workmen should be raised as otherwise there does not appear to be any plausible reason whatsoever as to why such dispute was not raised at the relevant point of time. In fact, from the tenor of the settlements arrived at in 1983 (Ext. M-3), it appears that they consciously entered into a settlement with the Management that they would not raise any demand which would put the Management in financial stringency, 19. From a perusal of the decision of the Supreme Court in Barani Refinery (supra), it appears that the aforementioned settlement of 1983 was a long standing settlement. In such a situation, in my opinion, it was reasonable on the part of respondent No. 1 to consider the aforementioned settlements to arrive at a finding that the Union had never raised any dispute for settlement thereof with the management in respect of the construction allowance to the employees appointed in the permanent set up between 1963 and 1965. In such a situation, in my opinion, it was reasonable on the part of respondent No. 1 to consider the aforementioned settlements to arrive at a finding that the Union had never raised any dispute for settlement thereof with the management in respect of the construction allowance to the employees appointed in the permanent set up between 1963 and 1965. It may be mentioned that respondent No. 1 in his impugned award has also taken into consideration various documents produced on behalf of the workmen and on the basis thereof it came to the conclusion that W. W./2 who proved the said documents, namely Exts. W./2 and W./9 did not state as to why no action was taken or dispute was not raised regarding payment of construction allowance prior to 1979. It is relevant to mention here that the said documents are of the years 1981 and 1984. 20. As noticed from the various decisions of the Supreme Court as also of the various High Courts, the law on the subject appears to be clear that it would be for the Industrial Tribunal to consider the matter as to whether in a case of this nature relief should be granted in favour of the workmen where the claim itself has become over stale. Respondent No. 1 has assigned sufficient and cogent reasons for not exercising its discretion in favour of the workmen. The reasons are neither bad in law nor unsustainable nor untenable nor substantially inadequate. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, the submissions of Mr. Sahay questioning the award do not come within the purview of one or the other aforementioned factors constituting an error of law. So far as the submission of Mr. Sahay to the effect that respondent No. 1 has not considered the effect of the statements made in Paragraps 8 and 10 of the written statement of the workmen is concerned, the same is merely stated to be rejected inasmuch as the pleading does not take place of proof. Except bringing on records the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated 30-64976 in Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 (Ext. W. 12), no further document has been brought on record to prove that prior to 31-7-1979 any dispute relating to non-payment of construction allowance was raised either by any other Union or the workmen individually. 21. Except bringing on records the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Patna, dated 30-64976 in Reference Case No. 15 of 1972 (Ext. W. 12), no further document has been brought on record to prove that prior to 31-7-1979 any dispute relating to non-payment of construction allowance was raised either by any other Union or the workmen individually. 21. For the reasons aforementioned, I am of the opinion that the award dated 17-4-1988 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petitions cannot be said to be vitiated in law. In view of my findings aforementioned, it is not necessary to consider the second question raised at the Bar. 22. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 1250 of 1988 (R) is dismissed and in that view of the matter, no writ is required to be issued in C.W.J.C. No, 1760 of 1988 (R). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.