JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. 1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court, dated 21.5.2007, whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the workman, respondent No. 1 herein, and directed the respondent-State to make a reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal with regard to the dispute raised by the workman. According to the workman, he was employed as a daily rated Beldar in January, 1983 and he continued working with artificial breaks upto December 1994 when his services were terminated. Thereafter, the petitioner raised a demand in the year 1999 and prayed that a reference be made to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal for deciding the dispute between him and the State. The stand of the State is that in fact the workman had worked only from 26th July, 1984 to 25th April 1985 and, therefore, the dispute which was raised in the year 1999 was stale and had ceased to exist and as such no reference could have been made. The workman has not placed on record any cogent material to show that he actually worked after the year 1985. There is no explanation as to why he kept silent after 1985. The learned Single Judge held that the State Government had no power to refuse to make a reference on the ground that the claim was belated. 2. It would be pertinent to mention that the question whether the State Government while exercising powers u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, is precluded from deciding the question as to whether the claim made by a workman is stale or not was referred to a larger Bench in CWP No. 1486 of 2007, titled Liaq Ram versus State of H.P. and others, and other connected matters. The questions were answered by the majority by holding as follows: 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. The questions were answered by the majority by holding as follows: 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 on to hold that in cases where 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 authorized 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. 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. 3. In the present case, there is no material whatsoever to show that the dispute was kept alive by the workman. Therefore, the dispute had apparently become stale and ceased to exist and the State was justified in refusing to make a reference. In view of the above discussion, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Therefore, the dispute had apparently become stale and ceased to exist and the State was justified in refusing to make a reference. In view of the above discussion, the judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the workman shall be deemed to have been rejected. No order as to costs.