Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30-12-98 (Annexure 4), by which the Government of Rajasthan has rejected the application of the petitioner to make a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ``the Act). (2). It is evident from the impugned order that the application for reference was made by the petitioner after lapse of twenty years from the date of termination and it has been rightly rejected by the Appropriate Government only on the ground of delay and laches. (3). There is no force in the contention of Mr. Gupta that the Appropriate Government has applied its mind on merit, for the reason that the Appropriate Government has not examined whether the termination was in consonance with law or not, or whether the compliance of the statutory provisions has been made or not. (4). Undoubtedly, there is no limitation provided for making an application for reference, but it is settled proposition of law that where no limitation is provided, the aggrieved party may approach the Authority/Tribunal/Court within reasonable period. (Vide State of Gujarat vs. Patel Raghavnath and others (1); and Mohammed Kavi Mohammed Amin vs. Fatima Begum Ibrahim (2). (5). Public policy manifested in Industrial Legislation is to achieve the aim of justice and to maintain peace. ``Long dormant claims have often more of cruelty than of justice in themselves. A legal remedy cannot be kept alive for unreasonable period even if the Statuate does not provide for any limitation. (Vide A. Court vs. Cross (3); N. Balkrishnon vs. M. Krishnamurthy (4); and L.S. Kavidia vs. State of Rajasthan (5). (6). Undoubtedly, the Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand of a workman with a view to decline reference, though in exceptional cases on a proper examination of the demand, it may come to the conclusion that the demands, being very stale, opposed to the provisions of the Act, inconsistent with any agreement, perverse or patently frivolous and not meriting a reference. It is not obligatory on the part of the Appropriate Government to make a reference in each and every case as it has to weigh the facts keeping in view the objective of industrial peace and smooth industrial relations between the parties. (7). It is not obligatory on the part of the Appropriate Government to make a reference in each and every case as it has to weigh the facts keeping in view the objective of industrial peace and smooth industrial relations between the parties. (7). In Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay and another (6), the Honble Supreme Court held that when the Appropriate Government considers the question as to whether a reference should be made under Section 12 (5), it has to act under Section 10(1) of the Act, which confers discretion on the Government either to refer the dispute or not to refer it. Section 12(5) imposes an obligation on the Appropriate Government to record reasons for not making the reference. However, when the question involves raising a question of law, the Appropriate Government should not purport to reach a final decision on the same as it is a subject matter to be decided by the Industrial Tribunal. Similarly, on disputed question of fact, the Government cannot take the final conclusions as the same would also fall in the domain of the Tribunal, but it cannot be said that the Appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merit of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under Section 10 (1) read with Section 12 (5) of the Act. The Court further observed as under:- ``If the claim made is patently frivolous or is clearly belated, the Appropriate Government may refuse to make reference. (8). A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, in State of Bombay vs. K.P. Krishnan (7), has held that ``there is an obligation on the Appropriate Government under the Act, to refere the dispute unless, of course, it is satisfied that the notice is frivolous or vexacious or that consideration of expediency requires that a reference should not be made. However, while making an order of refusing to make a reference, the Government should not be influenced by reasons which are wholly extraneous or irrelevant or which are not germane, and while considering the expediency, the Appropriate Government is not excluded to consider whether or not, it should exercise its powers to make a reference. However, while making an order of refusing to make a reference, the Government should not be influenced by reasons which are wholly extraneous or irrelevant or which are not germane, and while considering the expediency, the Appropriate Government is not excluded to consider whether or not, it should exercise its powers to make a reference. Even in dealing with the question as to whether it would be expedient or not to make a reference, the Government must not act in punitive spirit but must consider the question fairly and reasonably and take into account only the relevant facts and circumstances. Same view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs. State of M.P., and another (8) and V. Veerarajan and others vs. Government of Tamil Nadu (9). (9). In TELCO Convey Drivers karamchari Sangh vs. State of Bihar and others, (10), the Honble Supreme Court held that while considering the notice for making a reference, the Appropriate Government has no competence to go into the question whether master and servant relationship existed, or enter into the merit of the dispute and if the Appropriate Government has entered into the merit of the case, the Writ Court is bound to interfere. Same view has been reiterated in Dhanbad Colliery Karamchari Sangh vs. Union of India and others (11). (10). In Workmen vs. I.I.T.I. Cycles of India Ltd. and others (12), the Supreme Court held that it is not obligatory on the part of the Appropriate Government to make a reference of a dispute in each and every case where the reference is sought as the Government has to weigh the facts keeping in mind the objective of industrial peace and smooth industrial relations between the parties and where the reasons given by the Government for not making the reference, are found to be relevant, the Courts cannot interfere. (11). Thus, in view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that the reasons recorded by the Appropriate Government in not making a reference after lapse of twenty years, cannot be said to be irrelevant or unjust. The order does not warrant any interference and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.