Judgment 1. Challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order passed by the appropriate Government, dated 6/03/1992, vide which the industrial dispute sought to be raised by the workman within the purview of Sec.10 (1 ) (c) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, was declined. The impugned order reads as under: "on the subject cited above it is informed to you that the Government did not think it fit to send your case for decision to the Court because after examination it has been found that you have left the service on your own and has raised the dispute after the lapse of five years six months and no reason has been explained for delay. (Sd)/-for Joint Secretary to Government of haryana, labour Department. " 2. According to the petitioner he was initially appointed as Beldar on daily wages in january, 1983 at Kaithal in the Irrigation branch and continued to work there till 1/03/1984 when he was appointed in the regular pay-scale. He worked to the satisfaction of all concerned and was also granted annual increments for the years 1985 and 1986. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to narwana Sub-Division in 1986 and service book of the petitioner was also transferred. He worked there for two months but was not allowed to work after 17/07/1986. The matter was dealt with by the Conciliation Officer. However, he filed the papers on 29/11/1987. Thereafter the petitioner served a demand notice on 1/10/1999. According to the petitioner he had been approaching the respondents for granting him the employment but of no consequence. In reply to the demand notice, written statement was filed on behalf of the department in which it was stated that the petitioner had left the job of his own accord and no claim of the petitioner was pending. The petitioner contested the said issue, but the appropriate Government vide order, dated 6/03/1992, declined to make reference in furtherance to the demand notice served by the petitioner and rejected the request vide the impugned order. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to the law inasmuch as merely on the ground of delay the appropriate Government could not have declined to make the reference in terms of sec. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to the law inasmuch as merely on the ground of delay the appropriate Government could not have declined to make the reference in terms of sec. 10 (1 ) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. For this he relies upon the case of Ajaib Singh V/s. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and another air 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 82 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260 and also to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Rohtash V/s. State of Haryana and others (C. W. P. No 2936 of 2002, decided on March 7, 2002 ). Further it is contended that the appropriate government has in fact determined the dispute on merits in holding that the workman has left the service at his own, which jurisdiction is not vested in the appropriate Government in terms of a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Om Prakash V/s. State of Haryana and another 1994 (1) LLN 799. 4. The above contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner deserve to be considered with some merit. Normally, the appropriate government may not decline to make a reference only on the ground of delay unless the dispute had patently become stale or no industrial dispute was in existence. In Ajaib Singh (supra) the Hon ble apex Court enunciated the principles that where there is delay in serving the demand notice the government may not decline the reference as the labour Court could mould a relief keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. 5. Be that as it may, the question of delay hardly arises in the present case. The workman was not permitted to work in his post by the respondents after 17/07/1986. He served a notice and the proceedings before the conciliation Officer had taken place in the year 1987 itself. Paragraph 5 of the writ petition reads as under: "that to that effect the petitioner made several requests to the respondents as well as to the Labour unions and in the year 1987, as admitted by the respondents in the reply, dated 16/01/1992 to the demand notice submitted by the petitioner, matter was sent to the Conciliation Officer but that was filed on 29/11/1987 without any notice to the petitioner. " Reply filed by the respondents to Para.5 of the writ petition may also be noticed, which reads as under: "that in reply to Para.5 of the writ petition, it is submitted that the petitioner filed demand notice on 19/08/1987. As per record of the Labour-cum-Conciliation officer, Kurukshetra, the same was filed because the petitioner did not appear before him on the fixed date. " 6. From the above admitted facts, which appear from the pleadings of the parties on record, it is clear that the workman had taken recourse to his remedies at the first available opportunity and there was no delay on his part. According to the workman after closer of the proceedings by the Conciliation Officer on 29/11/1987 in furtherance to the demand notice, dated 19/08/1987 the workman continued to request the respondents for granting him employment. Getting no relief from any quarter, he again served a notice on 11/03/1991 which ultimately resulted in passing of the impugned order. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that there was no unreasonable or intentional delay on the part of the workman in serving demand notice and as such the reference could not be declined on the ground of delay, The order in this behalf is factually incorrect. 7. The parties are at issue whether the workman had abandoned the job voluntarily or his (sic) services were terminated on 17/07/1986. This was a matter which could be determined only upon recording of evidence and then taking a final decision on the merits of the dispute. This jurisdiction is certainly not vested in the appropriate Government. Apparently it has transgressed its jurisdiction. Prima facie an industrial dispute existed between the management and the workman and keening in view the controversy between the parties, it required determination by a Labour court in accordance with the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act. Even on this score the appropriate Government has fallen in error of jurisdiction in determining the dispute and declining the reference. 8. For the reasons aforestated, I allow this writ petition and quash the order, dated 6/03/1992, Annexure P/4 to the writ petition. It is further directed that the appropriate government shall make a reference on the demand notice of the petitioner to the appropriate forum in terms of Sec.10 (1 ) (c)of the Industrial Disputes Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs.