JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 9.2.1999 passed in CWJC No. 914/97 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition and affirmed the award given by the Labour Court in Reference Case No. 6/90. 2. It appears that the concerned workmen raised an industrial dispute after their application for higher pay scale was rejected under Section 33(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute was finally referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. The terms of reference was as under : "Whether Sharb Sri Ram Naresh Singh Personal No. 64910, Md. Zaffar P.No. 64193, Sudhan Munda P. No. 61907, Chamru Oraon P-64908, Birendra Singh P-No. 64902 and Sri M.N. Pandey P-6409 of Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd. Ranchi at present on the post of Yard Supervisors are entitled to get promotion in the following pay scales 14.2.1966 pay scale of Rs. 85-110 30.10.1972 pay scale of Rs. 105-115 31.5.1978 pay scale of Rs. 140-175 26.12.1985 pay scale of Rs. 546-819." 3. The Labour Court decided the main issue as to whether the concerned workmen are entitled to get promotion in the scale as mentioned in the terms of reference. However, incidently the Labour Court further held that the reference was made after inordinate delay and on that ground also the concerned workmen are not entitled to any relief. The said award was challenged by the appellant by filing the aforementioned writ petition. 4. The learned single Judge held that the Labour Court rightly observed that the dispute was raised after inordinate delay. 5. Mr. Neeraj Rai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned judgment as also the award passed by the Labour Court on the ground, inter alia, that the Labour Court has recorded an incorrect finding on Ext. A and committed a serious error of law in holding that Ext. A was never referred to the Labour Court for decision. 6. As noticed above, the terms of reference was whether the concerned workmen were entitled to get promotion in the prescribed pay scales. According to the award it appears that the admitted case of the parties was that the concerned workmen were given promotion in due time according to prescribed pay scales. The management in support of his filed Ext. 6. As noticed above, the terms of reference was whether the concerned workmen were entitled to get promotion in the prescribed pay scales. According to the award it appears that the admitted case of the parties was that the concerned workmen were given promotion in due time according to prescribed pay scales. The management in support of his filed Ext. 3, a chart showing promotion given to the concerned workmen along with others in the prescribed pay scales which was not denied or disputed by the concerned workmen. Although Ext. A was not in Issue before the Labour Court but the Labour Court has recorded a finding that the persons who were given promotion pursuant to Ext. A will not in any way be treated senior to the concerned workmen and they shall be junior to the concerned workmen. It further appears that Ext. A was subsequently recalled by the respondent allowing the previous cadre to exist. 7. Admittedly before raising industrial dispute under Section 10 of the said Act the appellant was prosecuting his claim under Section 33(c)(2) of the said Act. In our opinion, therefore, the Labour Court was not justified in holding that the reference was a belated one. In our view the delay in raising dispute under Section 10 of the said Act was properly explained by the concerned workmen. 8. As discussed above, the Labour Court has gone into the merit of the case and recorded a finding of fact that the concerned workmen were given due promotion which they were entitled to in the prescribed pay scale and Ext. A is not in any way a hurdle in the way of their seniority. We do not find any reason to interfere with the award in view of the admitted facts of the case. 9. We, therefore, affirm the award on the merit of the case and hold that there was no delay in the matter of reference of dispute before the Labour Court for adjudication and the Labour Court has correctly decided the reference on its own merit. This appeal, thus stands disposed of.