JUDGMENT Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 1. In this Writ petition, the award of the Labour Court (Annexure-7) made in Reference Case No. 12/1987 dated 25.10.2000 is sought to be quashed. By this award, the Labour Court disposed of the reference on the preliminary issue of non-maintainability of reference and did not consider other issues which had been framed for consideration and adjudication. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the award on the ground that the Labour Court could not have dismissed the Reference on the ground of maintainability as the Labour Court was legally bound to answer the Reference and thus, to adjudicate all the issues that were framed by it after hearing the parties. The learned Labour Court found the Reference not maintainable on the ground that the Reference was stale, 2. In the aforesaid circumstances, the questions to be answered in this writ petition are (i) whether the Labour Court can examine the staleness of the Reference and can dispose of the reference holding that it is non-maintainable (ii) whether the Labour Court is required to answer all the issues and (iii) whether the High Court can interfere with the impugned award? 3. The question aforesaid arose out of the simply facts that the petitioner, K. Sharma, claims himself to be a workman (Ticket No. 2254/02029/1). He was permanently appointed on 1.12.1962 by the respondent TELCO and since then, he was working continuously. On 19.11.1974, he received a charge-sheet issued by the Superintendent under item No. 24(X) of the Standing Order and was called upon to submit his explanation in writing by 4th December, 1974. According to the petitioner, without waiting for his explanation and without considering the explanation submitted by him, Mr. H.K. Akhori was appointed the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges, which, according to the petitioner, was a motivated act on the part of the charge-sheeting Authority and the enquiry was sham and simply an eye wash, perfunctory and one sided in utter violation of the principles of natural justice, in which the petitioner was not allowed to defend himself and ultimately, on the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 15.11.1974. Thereafter the petitioner raised a labour dispute by writing letter to the respondent No. 2. sending a copy of that to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Jamshedpur, Annexure-1. Thereafter the petitioner raised a labour dispute by writing letter to the respondent No. 2. sending a copy of that to the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Jamshedpur, Annexure-1. By Annexure-2 dated 5.12.1975, the petitioner was informed by the Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Labour and Employment, Bihar, that the Government did not consider it fit to refer the case for adjudication. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner again filed a representation for reviewing the case, Annexure-3. Then it appears that by a letter dated 11.12.1976, Annexure-4, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Jamshedpur, on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner, sent a letter to the respondent-management for appearing before him on 20.12.1976 at 11.00 a.m. for hearing on the matter of the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner allegedly repeatedly visited the office of the Labour Commissioner and Deputy Labour Commissioner, requesting them to refer the matter to the Labour Court, but nothing happened, yet ultimately by Annexure-5 dated 14.4.1987, the following reference was made by the Government :--Whether the termination of services of Shri Kauleshwar Sharma, Progress Supervisor, Telco, Ticket No. 2254/ 02029/1, Jamshedpur, is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to?" 4. After the Reference, which was numbered as Reference Case No. 12/1987, the petitioner as well as the respondents filed their written statements before the Labour Court, including the rejoinders to the pleadings. In the written statement, the petitioner challenged the domestic enquiry as well as the order of dismissal and the respondents challenged the validity of the Reference and also averred that the petitioner was not a workman, besides taking a plea of staleness of the Reference. When this writ petition was filed against the award, the respondents- managment took the same pleas in this writ petition by filing counter-affidavit which they had taken before the Labour Court. It is also relevant that the petitioner has not taken his dues from the management till date. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the petitioner and the Annexures the following facts do transpire :-- (i) The reference was refused by the Government and communicated to the petitioner under the order of the Under Secretary to the Government in the Department of Labour and Employment. Annexure-2. (ii) The representation for review, which the petitioner made, was not made to the Government, but to the Labour Commissioner, Annexure-3. Annexure-2. (ii) The representation for review, which the petitioner made, was not made to the Government, but to the Labour Commissioner, Annexure-3. (iii) Annexure-4 has been issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, directing the respondents to appear before him on 20.12.1976. This letter does not say that this was issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner under the orders of the Government for reviewing the order of refusal of reference. (iv) There is nothing on the record, except the averment made in the writ petition that from 20.12.76 till 14th April, 1987, any other representation was filed by the petitioner before the Government for reviewing the order of refusal of reference. (v) There is a delay of 11 years in referring the matter after the reference had been refused earlier. 6. The Labour Court in the impugned award, on the basis of the written statement of the management and considering certain other factors like the wages drawn by the petitioner, came to a finding that the petitioner was a workman. Further the Labour Court basing its finding on the decision rendered in CWJC No. 10910/ 1999, a decision of the Patna High Court, and also on the decision reported in 2000 (1) LLJ 561. came to a finding that a reference after 12 years is invalid and incompetent. Though the Labour Court on the request of the management, decided the validity and propriety of the domestic enquiry against management and asked the management to adduce evidence and ultimately, held that it would be decided along with the merit of the charge at the time of final hearing. 7. In support of his case, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon a decision reported in (1996) 2 SCC 66 , argued that since the management was heard by the Government before reviewing the Reference, the Reference cannot be held to be bad. He further argued, relying on the decisions reported in (1979) 1 SCC 1 and 1988 PLT 451, that for making a reference, the only requirement is whether the dispute is still continuing. He further argued that since the dispute had not been resolved and the petitioner was pursuing the matter and had also not taken his dues, so in all fairness, the dispute existed. He further argued that since the dispute had not been resolved and the petitioner was pursuing the matter and had also not taken his dues, so in all fairness, the dispute existed. He further argued that as there, is no limitation for referring the dispute, the delay of 11 years cannot be viewed against the petitioner for simple reason that this delay was due to the laches on the part of the Government and not on the part of the petitioner. Thus, he asserted that the reference is not stale and the dispute exists. Further argument advanced by him, relying on a decision reported in (2000) 1 SCC 371 , was that an Industrial Tribunal cannot question the validity of reference and it has to answer the reference. 8. The respondent-management submitted that the petitioner has superannuated and he has made confession of his guilt during enquiry and the management had not been given the opportunity of hearing before reviewing the matter by the Government and in the circumstances, under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court may not interfered with the award in view of the decision reported in AIR 1957 SC 227 . 9. It is undisputed that there is no limitation for making the reference. Since the reference is an administrative order based on the opinion of the Government, there can be no dispute that it can also be reviewed, provided the dispute exists. If a dispute exists, then even after 11 years, the reference cannot be bad. In the instant case, the reference was refused in the year 1974. There was close proximity in time of dismissal of the petitioner and refusal of reference of dispute. As found from the facts that for 11 years the matter remained in hibernation. The petitioner even did not move the Court in the writ against refusal of the reference by the Government. He made representation not to the Government, but to other officials till 1976 only. It is true that he has not received his dues after his dismissal and this is a circumstance on the part of the petitioner to plead that because of non-receipt of the dues by him, the dispute continued. If this is accepted, the existence or continuation of a dispute will be left to the sweet will of the dismissed employee and by not receiving the payment, he will keep the dispute alive. If this is accepted, the existence or continuation of a dispute will be left to the sweet will of the dismissed employee and by not receiving the payment, he will keep the dispute alive. I think that this view cannot be accepted. On being aggrieved, if he did not move the Court against refusal, then mere non-receiving of the dues does not make the dispute exist and there is no recorded proof of his communication with the Government, after the year 1976 for review of the order. No doubt, there is a letter issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner to the management for hearing in 1976. But had the reference been made soon thereafter, i.e., 1976 then it could have been inferred that the Government reviewed its earlier order after giving opportunity to the respondents of being heard. The reference was made after 11 years of that letter and before making the reference, the respondents were not heard. Therefore, this reference out of blue is also a surprise to the respondents and so when they say that they were not heard, in all fairness, their argument cannot be rejected. Law does not require hearing before reference but if the matter is suddenly reviewed after such a long period, then hearing should have been there, not as a rule of law, but as a rule of Prudence and Fair Play. 10. A similar argument was raised before the Apex Court in the case of Nedimgadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty and Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 . The Apex Court, in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment, held as follows :-- "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 the 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 is certainly subject to judicial review, limited though it might be. The High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In National Engg. industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan this Court observed, SCC p. 393, para 24. "24. The High Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court. In National Engg. industries Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan this Court observed, SCC p. 393, para 24. "24. It will be thus seen that High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute and none apprehended which could the 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 Tribunal, which could be examined by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. It is the existence of the Industrial Tribunal (sic dispute) 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 the appropriate Government lacks power to make any reference. 11. No doubt, once the reference is made, the Labour Court is required to answer the reference, but if this matter of staleness comes to the notice of the High Court in the instant writ petition, this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution, can look to the validity of the reference independently of the order on maintainability passed by the Labour Court. As it has been found that the dispute did not exist at the time of reference, which was made after 11 years of the refusal of the reference, so the reference became incompetent on two grounds-stale-ness and non-existence of the dispute. The reference itself is bad. 12. The Labour Court, as it framed an issue "whether the reference is valid?" can find the answer of this issue and can hold that the matter is stale, but it must address itself to other issues and answer the reference. Dismissal on preliminary issue is not legal. The question Nos. (i) and (ii) are answered accordingly. 13. In (2000) 2 SCC 455 . it was submitted before the Apex Court (Para-8) that once a reference has been made under Sec tion 10 of the Act, a Labour Court has to decide the same and the High Court cannot interfere with the proceeding but on the question of very jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the Court interfered. 13. In (2000) 2 SCC 455 . it was submitted before the Apex Court (Para-8) that once a reference has been made under Sec tion 10 of the Act, a Labour Court has to decide the same and the High Court cannot interfere with the proceeding but on the question of very jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the Court interfered. In that case the matter was referred after 7 years and the dispute was not found to exist and there fore, the Court held that the reference was stale. In the writ in hand, the reference has been after 11 years and the dispute does not exist. Therefore, relying on this decision of the Apex Court, the question No. (iii) is answered in affirmative and it is held that in the facts of this case, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can interfere of its own if the reference is stale. The writ is dismissed.