JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. The learned Single Judge while deciding this case came to the conclusion that the State Government has no jurisdiction to refuse to make a reference. As far as this issue is concerned, the finding of the learned Single Judge is not correct, in view of the law laid down a Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1484 of 2007 titled Laiq Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh wherein this question was answered in the following terms:- "After carefully going through the various judgments of the Apex Court, it is apparent that in some cases the Apex Court itself has held that since there is delay in seeking the reference the dispute had faded away or had got eclipsed due to lapse of time. Even in those cases where the Apex Court held that the reference was proper and the dispute still existed, it went onto hold that incases were lapse of time had caused fading or eclipsing of the dispute and nobody had kept the dispute alive, it would be reasonable to conclude that the dispute ceases to exist. The Government is authorised to form the opinion whether a dispute exists or not. This clearly shows that the Government is not powerless and in case there is great delay and there is no explanation for the delay then the Government can refuse to make a reference on the ground that the claim is stale and therefore the industrial dispute no longer exists. An industrial dispute can fade away and cease to exist because of long delay where the workman has taken no steps to keep the dispute alive. However, if the workman or the Union has kept the dispute alive even if no action has been initiated it will not mean that the dispute ceases to exist. Whether, a dispute exists or not, or has faded or got eclipsed is a question of fact which has to be decided in the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, the appropriate Government has to be subjectively satisfied while forming an "opinion" such power has to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner, whether a dispute exists or not. Therefore, the appropriate Government has to be subjectively satisfied while forming an "opinion" such power has to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner, whether a dispute exists or not. In case the answer is in positive, it has to refer the matter to Court/Tribunal irrespective of time lapse, though, it would depend on the factual background of each case and no straight-jacket formula can be laid.". 2. In this case petitioner was disengaged in July 1994 The demand notice was served after 5 years. The only explanation given is that in between some fresh employees were engaged or some Junior persons were re-engaged. That itself gave a cause of action to the petitioner to approach the Court which he did not do. The petitioner kept silent for 5 long years and did not keep the dispute alive, therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Commissioner to make a reference . 3. In view of the above discussion the appeal is allowed. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.