ORDER Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 23.11.2001 contained in Annexure-1, whereby the competent authority, i.e. Labour Department in the Central Government refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal on the ground that there is no substance in raising the dispute regarding the date of birth at a lime proximate to the superannuation of the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner (Union), one person was a workman under the respondent No. 3 who had joined in Burragarh Colliery and his date & year of birth was recorded to be 1947 which is a subsidiary of C.I.L. IBCCL) for that the management had issued an identity card, then for the first time the respondent No. 3. General Manager. M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., issued a letter to the petitioner on 10.1.2001 staling therein that the concerned workman, has been forced to retire on 30.6.2001, by the management vide Annexure-1. Prior to this letter, the respondent No. 2 had no information that he was going to retire with effect from 30.6.2001. The petitioner was under a bona fide belief that he would be superannuating in the year 2007 as his date of birth was recorded as 1947. Thereafter the petitioner approached the Asstt. Labour Commissioner for conciliation, vide Annexure-2. The Asstt. Labour Commissioner issued notice, called both the parties for discussion, management appeared before the Commissioner, raised their objections, the petitioner filed rejoinder, but ultimately the conciliation failed and the Asstt. Labour Commissioner sent his failure report to the Deputy Secretary. Ministry of Labour. Government of India, and by the impugned annexure respondent No. 2 refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. Consequently, this petitioner has knocked this Court in the writ jurisdiction. 3. The petitioner also filed supplementary affidavit annexing the copy of the identity card. Annexure-5, and the copy of the voters list-Annexure-6, and of the identity card issued by the Election Commissioner-Annexure-6/1. 4. After hearing both the parties, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner being an employee/workman with the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. It is also not contended that the point in issue is not covered by the definition of workman as defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 4. After hearing both the parties, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner being an employee/workman with the respondent-Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. It is also not contended that the point in issue is not covered by the definition of workman as defined in Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is also not disputed that the Ministry of Labour which issued the impugned order is not the appropriate Government in the matter. Reference was made to Section 10 of the Act by the petitioner and it was argued that the competent authority may refer the dispute if in its opinion there exists a dispute to either to a Board for promoting the settlement or to a Court for enquiry or to a Tribunal. The main grievance of the petitioner is that by not referring the matter to the Tribunal, the competent authority has erred in law. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 1565 and said that in fact, by refusing to refer the matter to the Tribunal, the appropriate Government has adjudicated the matter itself, for which they were not competent. Their duty was not to adjudicate the matter but to refer it to the Tribunal because the dispute was there, but the dispute could not be decided by the Government in exercise of its executive power provided under Section 10(1) of the Act. In paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed that "the Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to declining reference and Courts will be put vigilance whenever Government attempts to usurp power of the Tribunal for adjudication of the valid disputes and not allowing the Government would be to render Section 10(1) and 12(5) of the Act nugatory". Another decision that was relied upon by he learned counsel for the petitioner is 1992 PLJR SC 98. It was argued that the Central Government, instead of referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Tribunal, deciding itself to dispose of the matter. It is not permissible in the law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. Another decision that was relied upon by he learned counsel for the petitioner is 1992 PLJR SC 98. It was argued that the Central Government, instead of referring the industrial dispute for adjudication to the appropriate Tribunal, deciding itself to dispose of the matter. It is not permissible in the law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relying upon a decision reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 , argued that the matter has becomes stale and therefore, it cannot be looked into at this belated stage. In that case, after seven and half years from dismissal of the service, the petitioner of that case had filed a representation for his reinstatement. In this case, the petitioner for the first time came to know of his proposed retirement by the letter issued by the respondent No. 3 on 10.1.2001 and thereafter he filed his case on 12.1.2001 before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner. Central. Dhanbad. Annexure-2. 6. Now the question is when a matter becomes stale. Tills will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. When a cause of action has arisen to an aggrieved person and the person is sleeping over the matter for a pretty long time and after a long gap he awakes from his slumber and tiles a petition for reviewing of that order and during this period, much water has flown under the bridge, then in that circumstances, it can be said that the matter is stale. If in a particular case, a person, on certain bona fide belief, acts and he gets an information adverse to his interest and against his belief aforesaid and he acts promptly thereafter for the redressal of his grievances then, in my opinion, the matter will not become stale. The acide test in such cases will be the time gap between the cause of action and the relief sought to be obtained. Thus staleness will very proportionately to this time gap unless this gap is fulfilled with reasonable explanations. In the instant case, documents filed with the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner show that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that he was to retire in the year 2007 and the identity card had been issued by the respondent-concern to this effect. In the instant case, documents filed with the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner show that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that he was to retire in the year 2007 and the identity card had been issued by the respondent-concern to this effect. At no earlier time prior to Annexure-1, he was informed that he will be retiring with effect from 30.6.2001 and when he came to know all these, then he promptly acted within two days for redressal of his grievances in the Court of the Labour Commissioner and since then the matter is being pursued by him. In that situation, the matter will not become stale only because this matter has been raised sometime before the proposed date of retirement. Had it been the case that the petitioner knowing fully well that he was to retire with effect from 30.6.2001 raised this matter at this stage, then it could have been said that the matter has been raised at the fag end of his retirement, but as the petitioner was unaware of all these and the proposed date of his retirement was fixed by the respondent No. 2, in that circumstances, it cannot be said that this matter has been raised by the petitioner himself in his own interest at the fag and of his retirement. In the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, the matter has not become stale, simply for the reason that there is a little time gap between the cause of action and the steps taken for redressal of the grievances by the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision reported in 2002 AIR SCW 56 in this context to support his argument that the matter is not stale. In that case, the date of birth was in dispute and that was challenged after two years of the retirement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner says that at least this case is better than that of the referred to above. Thus, it is held that the matter in issue is not stale. 8. Another question is whether the appropriate Government by not referring the matter to the Tribunal has usurped the powers of Tribunal. Annexure-4, which is sought to be quashed, clearly shows that a final verdict has been given by the appropriate Government and for that no reason has been assigned. 8. Another question is whether the appropriate Government by not referring the matter to the Tribunal has usurped the powers of Tribunal. Annexure-4, which is sought to be quashed, clearly shows that a final verdict has been given by the appropriate Government and for that no reason has been assigned. The date of birth and the consequences arising therefrom are always a matter entitling or disentitling a person to so many benefits. Therefore, it cannot be adjudicated so lightly in the administrative side. Consequently, it is held that the appropriate Government exceeded its jurisdiction by giving a final verdict on the issue and exceeded its jurisdiction by usurping the powers of the Tribunal by doing so. Consequently, the Annexure-4, as it is in excess of jurisdiction, is quashed and it is directed that the respondent No. 2 will refer the matter to the competent Tribunal for deciding the dispute within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Tribunal thereafter will resolve the dispute before 13th June, 2002. 9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, this application is allowed.