M. K. Sharma ( 1 ) THE present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Delhi, in I. D. No. 277/1989 on 29/9/1997. By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal held that the workman had failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally and unjustifiably and consequently he was not entitled to any relief. ( 2 ) ON the basis of a dispute between the workman and the Management, a reference was made to the Tribunal on the following terms of reference: "whether the termination of the services of Sh. Mangal Singh is illegal and/ or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?" ( 3 ) THE workman filed his statement of claim whereas, the Management filed its written statement. It was stated by the workman in the statement of claim that his services were terminated with effect from 15/10/1983 without assigning any valid reason and, therefore, the same is illegal. The Management in its written statement did not deny that the workman had served the Management but claimed that the workman had stopped attending to his duties and left the job of his own and filed the claim after lapse of six years. The workman filed an affidavit which was tendered as his examination-in-chief. The said workman was also cross-examined by the Management. However, the defence of the Management was closed as it failed to avail of the three opportunities granted to it for adducing evidence. Thereafter the aforesaid award was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on 29/9/1997, holding that there was a delay of about five years in approaching the appropriate labour authority with a demand notice after the alleged order of termination was issued on 14/10/1983. The demand notice was issued by the workman on 21/6/1988, ( 4 ) IT was held by the Tribunal that the workman, in the instant case, had given no explanation for his silence over period of about five years, after the alleged termination of his service. It was also held by the Tribunal that if it was a case of wrongful termination of services, prompt action from the side of workman was expected and that his silence for five years was more in consonance with the claim of the Management for the petitioner had himself abandoned his services. It was also held by the Tribunal that if it was a case of wrongful termination of services, prompt action from the side of workman was expected and that his silence for five years was more in consonance with the claim of the Management for the petitioner had himself abandoned his services. Having arrived at the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal concluded that the workman had failed to prove that his services were terminated illegally or unjustifiably and consequently he was not entitled to any relief. ( 5 ) A reading of the aforesaid award would also indicate that the decision of Jai bhagwan v. Ambala Central Co-operative Bank; reported in 1984 SCC Labour and service 21, was also placed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, held that the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable on facts. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. ( 7 ) IT is indicated from the contents of the award that the Industrial Tribunal was persuaded to answer the reference against the workman and proceeded to hold that the services of the workman were not terminated illegally and unjustifiably on the ground that the workman failed to approach the labour authority with due diligence and the redressal was sought for after expiry of about five years and on that count the Tribunal proceeded to answer such reference against the workman. It is settled law that the limitation provided under the Limitation Act is not applicable to a reference and other proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. In the decision of Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing service Society Limited and Another; reported in III (1999)SLT 520= (1999) 6 Supreme court Cases 82, the Supreme Court after noticing the various earlier judgments including that of jai Bhagwan (supra), held that the relief under the Industrial disputes Act cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay and that the plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. It was also held that no reference to the Labour Court could be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone and that even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court or Board, dealing with the case could appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. Reference could also be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mahavir Singh v. U. P. State Electricity Board and Others; reported in (1999) 9 Supreme Court Cases 178, wherein also the Supreme Court held that due to delay in raising the Industrial dispute, the entire reference cannot be held to be incompetent. ( 8 ) IN my considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme court are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The issue of delay was one of the major factors which persuaded the Tribunal herein to answer the reference against the workman holding that the delay of five years in approaching the proper authority itself proves that the workman had himself abandoned his services. It was also held that the workman had given no explanation for his silence over period of about five years, after the alleged termination of his service and, therefore, when prompt action was not taken from the side of the workman, it could be deduced that the workman had abandoned his services In my considered opinion, the aforesaid findings cannot be sustained. The plea of delay although was raised by the Management, the same was required to be proved by leading proper evidence on both sides. ( 9 ) THE conclusions of the Tribunal that the silence of the workman for five years was itself a proof that the workman had himself abandoned his services is based on conjectures and surmises and the same is an abrupt finding arrived at by the tribunal without discussing the evidence on record. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, I set aside and quash the award passed by the industrial Tribunal in the aforesaid reference being I. D. No. 277/1989 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IN that view of the matter, I set aside and quash the award passed by the industrial Tribunal in the aforesaid reference being I. D. No. 277/1989 and remit back the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law. It is also ordered that in the context of the pleas taken and urged by the parties, it would be proper to give opportunities to the parties to lead their evidence afresh and from that stage the reference shall be proceeded with. The earlier evidence which was adduced on behalf of the workman could be read in evidence but the workman shall also be given a fresh opportunity to lead further evidence, if any, and an opportunity of cross-examination shall also be given to the Management. Similarly, the management shall be allowed to lead evidence in support of its case and the witnesses produced by the Management shal1 be allowed to be cross-examined. The tribunal shall thereafter decide the reference and pass the award in accordance with law. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal in terms of the aforesaid observations and directions, but, without any costs. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15/10/2001, for obtaining further orders in the reference. ( 12 ) LET a copy of this order be given Dasti to the Counsel appearing for the parties. Writ Petition allowed.