Order In the instant case, the writ petitioner- Management of the Steel Authority of India limited has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the award dated 22.8.2001, pronounced on 2.4.2002, passed by the learned Labour Court Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro, in Reference Case No. 22 of 1993. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under:- It appears that respondent no. 2 was appointed in the year, 1972 and continued in service. Thereafter he remained absent from 14.9.1980 to 10.11.1980. However, he joined thereafter and continued in service. Respondent NO.2 again remained absent unauthorisedly with effect from 25.3.1981 to 24.10: 1981. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent no. 2 that he was unwell and was under medical treatment for which he had duly intimated the Management under Certificate of Posting and the same has also been recorded in the impugned award under challenge. According to the petitioner-Management, it had issued a notice on 9.10.1981 to respondent No.2 i.e. after a lapse of seven months approximately. Respondent no. 2 submitted his joining on 25.10.1981. However, the petitioner-Management vide its order dated 26.10.1981 struck-off the name of respondent no. 2 from the rolls and, accordingly, terminated his services. After a lapse of 12 years a dispute was raised vide Reference Case No. 22 of 1993 under Section 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro, vide a detailed speaking order held that the striking-off the name of the appellant-trespondent no. 2 herein from the roll of the Company was not legal and justified and, accordingly, directed that the work mah was entitled to be reinstated in service, but since there was delay in raising the dispute, the back wages was reduced to 50% with all other consequential been efits. The order of the Management dated 26.10.1981 was set aside vide the impugned award and the present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the aforesaid award dated 22.8.2001. 3. Counsel for the Management has raised specific issue of laches and delay for a period of over twelve years in filing the reference case since the order of removal from the service was passed on 26.10.1981 whereas reference case is of the year 1993. 3. Counsel for the Management has raised specific issue of laches and delay for a period of over twelve years in filing the reference case since the order of removal from the service was passed on 26.10.1981 whereas reference case is of the year 1993. He has relied upon decisions of Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Prahlad Singh, reported in (2001)1 SCC 424 and also in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.P. Madhavankutty, reported in (2000)2 SCC 455 and has prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned award dated 22.8.2001 be set aside on the ground of limitation. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman has contended that the order dated 26.10.1981 is unsustainable in the eyes of law since no show cause notice was issued and also no departmental proceedings were initiated and, thus, it was against the well settled principle of natural justice. He has also raised a contention with regard to the fact that even though the unauthorized absence was from 25.3.1981 but the notice was issued for the first time after seven months i.e. on 9.10.1981. It is also submitted on behalf of the workman that at least one month's notice in lieu of service should have been granted as statutorily required under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act before termination. It has also been submitted that the order of striking-off the name of respondent no. 2 from the rolls is in utter violation of the provisions of the Standing Order. He has referred to and relied upon the following judgments, namely, (1993)3 SCC 259 [: 1994(1) PLJR (SC)55] (D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.), (1998)6 SCC 539 (Uptron In dia Ltd. vs. Shammi Bhan) and (2006)9 SCC 124 (Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam vs. Sham Lal). In the case of Chief Engineer, Ranjit Sagar Dam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph no. 9 has referred to and relied upon another judgment, as reported in (2006)2 SCC 329 (Sudamdih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Workmen), which reads as under:- "9. So far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on the facts of each individual case." Again in paragraph no. So far as delay in seeking the reference is concerned, no formula of universal application can be laid down. It would depend on the facts of each individual case." Again in paragraph no. 11, the Hon 'ble Supreme Court has quoted the judgment in the case of S.M. Nilajkar vs. Telecom District Manager, reported in (2003)4 SCC 27 and has held as under:- "17 …………………It is true, as held in Shalimar Works Ltd. vs. Workmen that merely because the Industrial Disputes Act does not provide for a limitation for raising the dispute, it does not mean that the dispute can be raised at anytime and without regard to the delay and reasons therefor 5. The ratio of the aforesaid judgments clearly lays down and specifies that even though there is no limitation, prescribed for reference of dispute to an Industrial Tribunal, it has to be reasonable. The learned Presiding Officer has also noted the fact about delay but it has directed 50% back wages with all consequential benefits while setting aside hte order dated 26.10.1981. 6. The Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of Uptron India Ltd. (supra) while interpreting the expression "liable to automatic termination", occurring in the Standing Order, held that it conferred discretion upon the management to terminate or not to terminate services of a confirmed employee who had unauthorizedly overstayed leave. It also held such discretion has to be exercised in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid proposition of law. But here is a case where there has been an unexplained, admitted delay of over twelve years in filing the reference case. The judgment of this Court, referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, as passed on 12th June, 2003 in C.W.J.C. No. 2016 of 1994, does not apply to the facts of this case for the sole reason that there the delay was explained and due diligence in pursuing the matter before the Grievance Committee and the deliberation of the Committee, which actually consumed time was admitted and, thus, the same will not apply to the facts of the present case. 8. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) in an identical case where the industrial dispute was raised after 13 years of unexplained delay, declined to grant relief. 8. The Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. (supra) in an identical case where the industrial dispute was raised after 13 years of unexplained delay, declined to grant relief. It was also held that under Orders 10(f) and (h) of the Standing Orders if a workman remains absent beyond the period of leave, he looses lien on his appointment. 9. Again in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (supra) the Hon 'ble Supreme Court held that in spite of absence of a statutory limitation, the Labour Courts should not revive stale matters. 10. In the aforesaid background I am of the considered view and opinion that this is a case of an admitted, unexplained and inordinate delay of over twelve years in filing the Reference Case No. 22 of 1993 and, thus, the learned Presiding Officer has clearly erred in not even deciding the issue with regard to the admitted delay and laches, even though in its operative portion of the order it records that there was a delay in raising the dispute against the termination of service. In the aforesaid facts and the settled law, the impugned award dated 22.8.2001, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro. is unsustainable and is, accordingly, set aside in view of the admitted extraordinary delay of over twelve years in filing Reference Case. This writ petition is, thus, allowed but without any order as to costs.