JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Petitioners have filed this writ petition against the order dated 17.3.2004 Annexure P-4 passed by respondent No. 2. A perusal of this order shows that reference has been refused by the said respondent on two grounds namely, that petitioners alongwith other persons named in it had not completed 240 days continuously in preceding 12 months to their termination and the dispute having been raised after 10 years, without giving proper justification for such delay. 2. According to Shri Khidta, on both these counts, reference could not have been refused. Thus the order is bad in law and after it is set aside, appropriate directions need to be issued to respondent No. 2 for referring the matter under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court. 3. When put to notice, respondents have filed reply. In its reply, respondent No. 2 has justified the passing of order on the above grounds while deciding reference. Similar is the stand of respondent No. 1. Additionally it is also stated that by claiming belated reference, both the petitioners are trying to now revive a stale claim, which by their own act and conduct they did not want to subsist. 4. After having given our thoughtful consideration to the pleadings of the parties and submissions urged at the time of hearing, respondent No. 2 could not have refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court on both the counts. Reason being that whether a workman had completed 240 days immediately in preceding 12 months prior to his termination, is a question which is to be decided by the Labour Court on the basis of material that may be produced by the parties during the course of proceedings. As such, refusal of reference on this ground by respondent No. 2 cannot be sustained in law. This part of the order is liable to be set aside. 5. So far as plea that the reference is being claimed at a belated stage and that the petitioners by their act and conduct had not kept the dispute alive is concerned, again this plea cannot be accepted. Reason being delay by itself cannot be made a ground to refuse reference. In the event of success of workmen like petitioners, it may be a good ground in a given situation while moulding the relief. 6. Reason being delay by itself cannot be made a ground to refuse reference. In the event of success of workmen like petitioners, it may be a good ground in a given situation while moulding the relief. 6. To reject the reference on the ground of delay in our considered view, would be negating the purpose of beneficent labour legislation. (For taking this view, reliance is being placed on Deepa Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh and others, CWP 550 of 2004, decided on 22nd December, 2004; Ramesh Chand v. Union of India, Latest H.L.J. 2004 (H.P.) 1317; Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and another v. Multan Singh and others, CWP 1201 of 2001; Sapan Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and others, (2001) 6 SCC 222; Gurmail Singh v. Principal Government College of Education and others, (2000) 9 SCC 496; Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-aim-Processing Service Society Ltd. and another, (1999) 6 SCC 82; M/s. Western India Watch Co. Ltd. v. The Western India Watch Co. Workers Union and others, (1970) 1 SCC 225 and Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. v. The Workman, AIR 1967 SC 948). No other point is urged. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly. As a result of it, while quashing Annexure P-4, respondent No. 2 is now commanded to refer the dispute between petitioners and respondent No. 1 for its adjudication to the Labour Court, within four weeks of the receipt of certified copy of this order. It hardly needs to be clarified that as and when reference is received by the Labour Court, it shall decide the same, without being influenced by anything said in this order which is meant for limited purpose of disposal of this writ petition. Parties are left to bear their own costs. An authenticated copy of the judgment in CWP No. 550 of 2004, decided on 22.12.2004, (supra) be placed on the file of this case by the Registry. Writ petition allowed.