JUDGMENT Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Sri V.R. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vivek Ratan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. Inspite of notice sent and in spite of sufficiency of service in view of office report dated 1.11.2008, respondent No. 5 has not filed any counter affidavit and has not appeared before this Court. 3. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.8.2007 (Annexure 5 to writ petition) and further a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 not to enforce the order of reference as mentioned in Annexure 5 to writ petition and further not to proceed in Adjudication Case No. 30 of 2008. 4. The facts arising out of writ petition are that petitioner M/s Obeetee Pvt.Ltd. (herein-after-referred as Obeetee) is a Private Ltd. Company registered under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in manufacturing and exporting of woollen carpets, dhurry and other floor coverings etc having its factory at Gopepur, Gopiganj, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, District Bhadhoi. On the basis of relevant record available in the factory, respondent No. 5 Bal Mukund was appointed as Probationer on 30.9.1994 and was placed under probation for a period of six months. As his performance was not satisfactory, therefore, probation period was extended for a period of six months. Due to his unsatisfactory work during the extended period of probation he was also issued caution letters and he was not confirmed and subsequently by order dated 30.9.1995 his services were terminated. Respondent No. 5 never received any dispute and kept mum for a period of 12 years with regard to his termination. Writ petition was filed in the year 1995 as Writ Petition No. 26570 of 1995. Said writ petition after filing counter affidavit, no action was ever taken by respondent No. 5. Suddenly in the month of November, 2006, petitioner received a notice dated 7.11.2006 from respondent No. 2 informing petitioner that an industrial dispute has been raised by respondent No. 5 against petitioner. Further information was given that matter was to be heard on merits and petitioner was required to appear before the Court. After perusal of application of respondent No. 5, it shows that he claimed to have worked from 26.10.1994 till 25.8.1995 and he has also claimed service from 1995 till 2005. Further information was given that matter was to be heard on merits and petitioner was required to appear before the Court. After perusal of application of respondent No. 5, it shows that he claimed to have worked from 26.10.1994 till 25.8.1995 and he has also claimed service from 1995 till 2005. It is also to be mentioned that no application for delay condonation was ever moved with the application by respondent No. 5. Petitioner filed a written statement/objection dated 6.1.2007, stating therein that matter is stale and suffer from delay and latches and no application for condonation of delay was filed in support of application and service of respondent no.5 was not confirmed and was terminated on 30.9.1995. Further a plea was taken that a writ petition was filed and that is still pending and an objection was taken that as respondent No. 5 has approached this Court after a lapse of about 12 years and delay has not yet been explained, therefore, it should not be entertained. 5. Rejoinder statement was filed on behalf of respondent No. 5. It was stated by respondent No. 5 that writ petition filed by him pertains to his wrongful termination and did not relate to present dispute raised by him before respondent No.2 and in the present application he has claimed un-paid salary. It was also pointed out that respondent No.5 in the second rejoinder statement has totally changed the earlier stand taken and contradictory claim has been taken before respondent No. 2. It was for the first time that respondent No. 5 by way of his second rejoinder statement dated 6.2.2007 raised industrial dispute with regard to his termination dated 30.9.1995. It was submitted before respondent No. 2 that after a lapse and delay of more than 12 years of the order of termination, no industrial dispute exists or could be even said to be apprehended at present. But it transpires that respondent No.4 Deputy Labour Commissioner issued an order dated 24.8.2007 condoning the delay and ignored the objection raised by petitioner without being any reasonable cause shown and referred the matter for adjudication. 6. But it transpires that respondent No.4 Deputy Labour Commissioner issued an order dated 24.8.2007 condoning the delay and ignored the objection raised by petitioner without being any reasonable cause shown and referred the matter for adjudication. 6. Sri V.R.Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioner submits that now it is well settled that if the claim is stale and no reasonable explanation has been given for approaching the labour court within a reasonable period, it will be presumed that there is no dispute and labour court has got no jurisdiction to refer the matter treating it to be that there is a dispute. Admittedly, services of respondent No.5 came to an end in the year 1995 and he has not raised any dispute till 2006 after about 12 years that too without application for condonation of delay and without any explanation in the application that what were the reasons, why he has approached the labour court after a lapse of about 12 years. 7. Sri Agarwal has placed reliance upon the Apex Court reported in 2009 LLR, 827, State of Karnataka and another v. Ravi Kumar and has placed reliance upon para 5 of the said judgement. The same is being quoted below : “5. This Court has repeatedly held that stale claims should not be referred- vide Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P.Madhavankutty and others, 2000 (2) SCC 455 and Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga, 2002 (1)) SCC 167. We may also refer to the decision in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. K.T. Rolling Mills, 1995(1) SCC 181 wherein this Court observed that when a power is conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it could be involved, the same has to be done within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably, and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of reasonableness.” 8. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid judgement, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Apex Court has also taken a view that, in case, the claim is stale, it should not be referred. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. Admittedly, in the year 1995, services of respondent were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory service being a probationer. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and have perused the record. Admittedly, in the year 1995, services of respondent were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory service being a probationer. He has not raised any dispute for a period of 12 years and from the perusal of application it appears that no reasons has been stated that why he has approaching the court after a lapse of 12 years. Though under the Act, no period of limitation has been provided but it is clear that when a power is conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it could be invoked, the same has to be done within reasonable period, as all powers must be exercised reasonably and exercise of the same within reasonable period would be a facet of reasonableness. I am of view that there was no dispute and the matter should not have been referred as there is no explanation and the claim filed by respondent No. 5 has become a stale claim in view of Apex Court judgement. 10. In view of aforesaid fact, I am of the view that respondent No. 4 has illegally referred the dispute. Therefore order dated 24.8.2007 is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 24.8.2007 (Annexure 5 to writ petition) is hereby quashed. 11. No order as to costs. ————