Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ application, is the Management of the Govindpur Colliery of M/s B.C.C.L., Dhanbad. 3. Challenge, in this writ application, is to the Award passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 153 of 1998, whereby and where under the Tribunal has answered the reference in favour of the Respondent-workmen. 4. The facts of the petitioner's case in brief is stated as under:- The petitioner's mother was in employment of the Respondent-B.C.C.L. in the Govindpur Colliery. She died in the month of September, 1984. Within one year after her death, the petitioner filed an application before the concerned authorities of the Respondents, praying for grant of compassionate appointment under the terms of the N.C.WA The application was considered and the petitioner was called upon to furnish certain relevant documents in order to assess his eligibility. It appears, however, that the matter remained inconclusive for some time and later, as per the stand taken by the Management, when the petitioner did not respond with the relevant documents, the Issue was closed. 5. It appears that on the plea that no intimation regarding the decision taken on his application for compassionate appointment was received for a considerable period from the side of the Management, the petitioner continued to await for communication in this regard and ultimately, he raised an industrial dispute through the Labour Union and upon approval by the Central Government, the reference for adjudication of the dispute was accordingly referred to the Industrial Tribunal. 6. By the impugned Award, after hearing the parties, the ,Industrial Tribunal answered the reference in favour of the workman, directing the petitioner-Management to grant him compassionate appointment in terms of the N.C.W.A. 7. Assailing the impugned Award, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award is bad both on points of law as well as on facts, since the Tribunal has conspicuously failed to address the relevant and pertinent issues, namely, the delay in making the reference of the dispute and has not recorded any finding thereon. Assailing the impugned Award, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned Award is bad both on points of law as well as on facts, since the Tribunal has conspicuously failed to address the relevant and pertinent issues, namely, the delay in making the reference of the dispute and has not recorded any finding thereon. Learned counsel explains that the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was filed way back in 1985, and since no decision was taken on account of the non-appearance of the workman with the relevant documents, the raising of the dispute after more than ten years, is apparently stale and the very purpose of compassionate appointment has become frustrated. Yet, the Tribunal has not considered this aspect despite the fact that in the objections taken by the petitioner-Management, a specific issue regarding the staleness of the reference of the dispute, was raised. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-workmen, would on the other hand, want to support the impugned Award stating that the delay, if any was entirely on the part of the Management and this has been considered by the Tribunal in its Award. Learned counsel explains that admittedly, the workman had submitted his application for compassionate appointment within the limitation period of one year his claim for compassionate appointment was secured to him under the terms of the N.C.WA, which was binding on the employer of his deceased-mother. No information regarding the decision taken on the representation of the petitioner was ever communicated to the petitioner and being an illiterate person and in absence of any appropriate' advice, he had awaited in bona fide anticipation, and it was ultimately, when he was confirmed that the Management would not respond to his request, then he referred the industrial dispute through the Labour Union for adjudication. 9. From perusal of the impugned Award, I find that the Tribunal has taken note of the objections, raised by the Management including the objections relating to the delay in making the reference. Yet, the Tribunal has not framed any issue for determination on the point of delay in making the reference and has instead, proceeded to declare the Award in favour of the workman by treating the purported lapse entirely on the part of the Management. Yet, the Tribunal has not framed any issue for determination on the point of delay in making the reference and has instead, proceeded to declare the Award in favour of the workman by treating the purported lapse entirely on the part of the Management. Apparently, the Tribunal has not considered the fact that even if the Management may not have forwarded any further communication beyond what was sent last to the petitioner, but the petitioner was also responsible for the delay in raising the dispute. 10. In the case of the Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd., Bokaro vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro & Another, a Bench of this Court in W.P.(L) No. 3773 of 2002*, had occasion to deal with• an identical issue, where the reference of the dispute, was made after a lapse of about 12 years and the Management having taken a specific objection on the ground of staleness of the reference. The Court had observed that though the Tribunal had taken note of such an objection taken by the Management but no issue was framed nor was any finding recorded on any such issue by the Tribunal. By referring to several judgments of the Supreme Court in this context, this Court had set aside the Award of the Tribunal with an observation that it was a case of an admitted, unexplained and inordinate delay of over twelve years in filing the reference case and the Tribunal has clearly erred in not even deciding with regard to the admitted delay and latches. 11. The ratio decided in the aforementioned case of the Management of Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra), squarely applies to the facts of the present case also. 12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances and discussions made, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The impugned Award dated 22. 11.2004 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2 at Dhanbad in Ref. Case No. 153 of 1998, is unsustainable and is accordingly, set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs.