Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This writ application is directed against the award dated 11th January, 1984 passed in Reference case No.6 of 1978 in favour of workmen Nanhak Mistry, nathuni Pandit and Samdani Khan for their re-instatement as well as for payment of a sum of Rs.7,000/- in lieu of back wages to each of them in a dispute raised on their behalf by the Union. 2. In short, the relevant facts of the case are that the workmen of patna Branch of the petitioning company went on strike with effect from 9.5.1964 when three of the aforementioned workmen were on leave. It is claimed by the union that when the three workmen reported to the management to join their duties on completion of their leave period, the branch Manager did not allow them to join on the plea that no workman would be allowed to enter the premises of the company until the strike of the workmen is over. It is also claimed that even thereafter the said three workmen approached the management for allowing them to resume their duties repeatedly but were refused to join their duties. 3. It appears that a Reference case for adjudication of the legality or otherwise of the aforesaid strike was taken before the Industrial Tribunal, which finally came up to this Court to c. W. J. C. No.7530 of 1965, in which the award of re-instatement of the striking workmen was upheld by judgment and order dated 10.10.1966. The management against the said judgment of this Court went in special leave to the Supreme Court, which finally ended in a compromise by the management agreeing to re-instate the 26 workmen, who went on strike. In the meantime, it is claimed that the aforementioned three workmen again approached the management for their re-instatement pursuant to the judgment of this court, but the management did not allow them to resume their duties and when the matter was finally set at rest by the order of the supreme Court and yet the said three workmen were not allowed to resume their duties, they approached the labour Superintendent and thereafter a Reference was made under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Thereafter the Labour Court, by the impugned award held the removal from service of the aforementioned three workmen not at all proper or justified and directed for their re-instatement. 4. Thereafter the Labour Court, by the impugned award held the removal from service of the aforementioned three workmen not at all proper or justified and directed for their re-instatement. However, considering the facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that a period of twenty years had elapsed since they had been out of their employment, the labour Court did not saddle the management with the burden of their entire back wages and directed for payment of a sum of Rs.7,000/- in lieu of back wages to each of them. 5. It is contended by Mr. Vijay nandan Sahay, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned award is bad as the claim of the workmen through the Union itself, which was made after lapse of more than eight years, was stale. This point was also raised before the Labour court which has dealt with it is paragraph 13 of the award. It appears that the said objection raised on behalf of the petitioner was not accepted by the labour Court under the impression that in the earlier dispute the case of these three workmen were also involved and the matter was finally set at rest by the decision of the Supreme court in the year 1972, only whereafter the workmen got cause of action, and they approached the labour Superintendent some time in november, 1972. 6. It is strange as to how the labour Court has considered the aforementioned objection raised on behalf of the petitioner under such impression when the fact was before the labour Court that after the decision of the Court in the earlier case on 10.10.66 no dispute in relation to these three workmen remained pending as this Court held that the case of the said three workmen were not involved in the earlier Reference. The Labour court also took notice of the said fact in the impugned award and rejected the plea of the management that the case of the said workmen had already been decided by the earlier award and it cannot be decided again to the present Reference. In the aforementioned circumstances, in my opinion they ought to have immediately thereafter taken steps to raise the dispute. In the aforementioned circumstances, in my opinion they ought to have immediately thereafter taken steps to raise the dispute. I find that for the first time after about eight years of their termination and six years even from the judgment of the high Court the employees union took the matter regarding their termination to the Labour Superintendant, who started conciliation proceeding on 30.11.72 and on failure of the same the matter was referred to the Labour court for adjudication. 7. In this regard the Supreme court in the case of M/s. Shalimar works Limited V/s. Their Workmen, reported in A. I. R.1959 Supreme court, 1217, laid down law as follows: "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 concilliation proceedings have failed partitularly 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. " 8. In the said case before the supreme Court also the dispute related to discharge of workmen and the supreme Court held that the Tribunal would be justified in refusing the relief of reinstatement after the workers did not move for conciliation or raised the dispute for almost three years. 9. No counter-affidavit has been filed in the present case. Though the respondent union entered appearance through their learned Counsel by filing power on their behalf, but none has appeared to oppose this application. However, learned J. C. to G. P. VI, who appeared on behalf of the State attempted to defend the reference made by the State Government and contended that the claim of the workmen was not stale and the reference has righly been adjudicated by the Labour court. However, learned J. C. to G. P. VI, who appeared on behalf of the State attempted to defend the reference made by the State Government and contended that the claim of the workmen was not stale and the reference has righly been adjudicated by the Labour court. I do not find any substance in the said submission of the State Counsel particularly in the absence of any explanation much less a reasonable explanation for not raising the claim for six long years even after the decision of this Court in respect of the earlier reference case. It is no doubt that no period of limitation has been provided in the Industrial Disputes Act either for referring the dispute by the appropriate Government in exercise of power under Sec.10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , or for filing an application by the agrrieved workman for making reference, but in view of the law laid down by the Apex court that the workers who do not raise dispute and take steps for concilliation or for reference or the dispute for three years, then the tribunal would be justified in refusing the relief of re-instatement to avoid dislocation of the industires, I am left with no option but to hold that the claim of the aforementioned three workmen was stale and the tribunal should have refused the relief of their reinstatement. 10. In the result, the writ application is allowed and the impugned award is quashed. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.