JUDGMENT : - S. N. Srivastava, J. 1. THE writ petition is directed against the award dated 28.10.1993, passed by labour court in Reference No. 126 of 1992. THE labour court held that the order of dismissal dated 31.3.1976 was illegal and workman is entitled to be re-instated. Salary for the suspension period was forfeited and the sentence was reduced to serious warning. Labour court further held that it has no power to quash the reference though made after 15 years of Industrial dispute. 2. HEARD Sri R. A. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. F. A. Naqvi appearing on behalf of opposite party. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the opposite party-workman was terminated on 31.3.1976 and thereafter he was engaged in some other work. Industrial dispute raised after 15 years is not maintainable as no dispute existed at that time. Labour court acted illegally in entertaining the reference after 15 years and giving award. He further urged that the award of labour court be quashed as no dispute existed at the time of reference. The entire proceeding and reference No. 126 of 1992 made by the appropriate Government was incompetent and liable to be quashed. 3. LEARNED counsel for the opposite party urged in reply to the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no time limitation under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, even after 15 years, reference was rightly made and labour court has rightly passed the award. 4. AFTER considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, following fact emerges : Employee was employed as labourer on 22.12.1973 in Jhansi Depot. He was suspended on 24.12.1975. He was given opportunity of hearing and after departmental enquiry, he was dismissed from service. It is further borne out from the record that he did not raise any dispute before any competent authority and joined in another work. He was carrying on work of plying two seaters, as admitted by him. He raised a dispute in 1991 and reference was made by referring order dated 2.6.1992. From the facts borne out from the record, it is clear that in the year 1991 when workman raised dispute and reference was made, no industrial dispute existed. Therefore, reference was bad. He was carrying on work of plying two seaters, as admitted by him. He raised a dispute in 1991 and reference was made by referring order dated 2.6.1992. From the facts borne out from the record, it is clear that in the year 1991 when workman raised dispute and reference was made, no industrial dispute existed. Therefore, reference was bad. There is no material on record that applicant has taken any steps between 1976 and 1991 for his alleged grievance to any authority or forum available under law. Since no industrial dispute existed at the time of reference in the year 1992, reference as well as award made by labour court is vitiated in law. Reference made by State Government and award on the basis thereof when no industrial dispute existed or even apprehended was without jurisdiction. Matter has already become final as back as in the year, 1976. 5. I am supported by judgment of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhavankutty and others, 2000 (2) AWC 923 (SC) ; AIR 2000 SC 939. Paras 6 and 8 are to be quoted below : Para 6 : "Law does not prescribe any limit for the appropriate Government to exercise its powers under Section 10 of the Act. It is not that this power can be exercised at any point of time and to revive matters which had since been settled. Power is to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. There appears to us to be no rational basis on which the Central Government has exercised powers in this case after lapse of about seven years of order dismissing the respondent from service. At the time reference was made no industrial dispute existed or could be even said to have been apprehended. A dispute which is stale could not be the subject matter of reference under Section 10 of the Act. As to when a dispute can be said to be stale would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. When the matter has become final, it appears to us to be rather incongruous that the reference be made under Section 10 of the Act in the circumstances like the present one. In fact it could be said that there was no dispute pending at the time when the reference in question was made. The only ground advanced by the respondent was that two other employees who were dismissed from service were reinstated. Under what circumstances they were dismissed and subsequently reinstated is nowhere mentioned. Demand raised by the respondent for raising industrial dispute was ex facie bad and incompetent." Para 8 : "It was submitted by the respondent that once a reference has been made under Section 10 of the Act a labour court has to decide the same and High Court in writ jurisdiction cannot interfere in the proceedings of the labour court. That is not a correct proposition to state. An administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside that, it is certainly subject to judicial review limited though it might be. High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of very jurisdiction of the labour court. In National Engineering Industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan, JT 1999 (9) SC 377 ; 1999 AIR SCW 4626 this Court observed : "It will be thus seen that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could be subject matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the Act. Here it is a question of jurisdiction of the industrial dispute, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference." 6. THE opposite party has not cited any ruling to the contrary on this question. It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal which would clothe the appropriate Government with power to make the reference and the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate it. If there is no industrial dispute in existence or apprehended appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference." 6. THE opposite party has not cited any ruling to the contrary on this question. THE ruling cited by learned counsel for opposite party in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Salig Ram Sharma, AIR 1960 All 543 ; Avinash Chandra Sanjar v. Divisional Superintendent, Central Railway, Jhansi and others, 1961 LLJ 7 (All) and Management of Northern Railway Co-operative Society v. Industrial Tribunal Rajasthan and another, AIR 1967 SC 1182 , are not on the question raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. As no industrial dispute existed, it could not be raised on 3.10.1991. 7. WITH the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Impugned order dated 28.10.1993 under reference 126 of 1992 is quashed. 8. NO order as to cost.