( 1 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , the petitioners-employer challenges the award of the Labour Court, U. P. , Agra dated 22nd December, 1984, copy whereof is annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. ( 2 ) IN short, the brief facts of the present case are that the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4-K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (In short the Act) have referred the following matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. "whether the action of the employer in depriving its workman Bhagwati Giri Goswami, Technician from promoting to the Grade of Technician Grade-1 is legal or justified? If not, to what relieve the workman concerned is entitled and with what details?" ( 3 ) THE Labour Court has issued notices to both the employer as well as the workman concern and both the parties have exchanged their pleadings before the Labour Court. The employer raised some preliminary objection that since the cause which has been espoused for the workman concern is by a union which is unregistered, therefore the reference is bad in law. In reply, the workman concern submitted before the Labour Court that since the employer has not raised any such objection before the conciliation proceedings, therefore now they are stopped from raising the same. The Labour Court has rejected the objection raised on behalf of the petitioners-employer regarding maintainability or the competence of the Labour Court to decide the reference. With regard to the aforesaid preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioners-employer extraneously argued that since the cause has not been espoused by a registered union, therefore the reference is bad and so far as the award, it deserves to be quashed by this Court. ( 4 ) IN reply to the aforesaid objection raised on behalf of the petitioners-employer, learned counsel for the contesting respondent-workman has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1960 SC, 1328 - Newspapers Ltd. , Allahabad Vs. U. P. State Industrial Tribunal and others, wherein the Apex Court has held : "both the Courts have held, and rightly, that it is not necessary that a registered body should sponsor a workmans case to make it an industrial dispute. U. P. State Industrial Tribunal and others, wherein the Apex Court has held : "both the Courts have held, and rightly, that it is not necessary that a registered body should sponsor a workmans case to make it an industrial dispute. Once it is shown that a body of workmen, either acting through their union or otherwise had sponsored a workmans case it becomes an industrial dispute. " ( 5 ) IN view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners-employer is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected. The next argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners- employer regarding rejection of the second objection raised on behalf of the employer before the Labour Court to the effect that the question of promotion of the workman concern is of the year 1970, whereas the reference is made in the year 1979, therefore the Labour Court has erred in answering the reference. It is settled that the reference made by the State Government cannot be questioned with regard to the competence of the reference before the Tribunal or the Labour Court, unless it is demonstrated that the reference has become stale. In the present case, there is no such pleading, it is only argued by learned counsel for the employer that the reference was barred by time as the promotions were made in the year 1970 and the reference is made in the year 1979. In the present case, there is no such pleading, it is only argued by learned counsel for the employer that the reference was barred by time as the promotions were made in the year 1970 and the reference is made in the year 1979. ( 6 ) IT is admitted at the Bar that there is no limitation or bar prescribed for making a reference under Section 4-K of the Act and that the satisfaction of the State Government that there exists an industrial dispute, since has not been challenged by the petitioners-employer either before the Labour Court or before this Court, in my opinion the view taken by the labour Court that the reference made has to answered in the absence of any pleadings or material that the reference has become stale, therefore the view taken by labour Court deserves to be upheld and is hereby upheld and it is therefore held that in the facts and circumstances of the case it can not be said that the reference has become stale or that it is barred by any provision of limitation or has lost its efficacy because of the delay in making the reference by the State Government. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners-employer then submitted that the findings arrived at by the Labour court are perverse and suffer from the error apparent on the face of record, but has failed to demonstrate that any of the findings arrived at by the Labour Court in any way is either perverse, or suffer from any error, much less error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. .