JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court in the matter of refusal by Central Government to make reference of industrial dispute for adjudication before the Central Government-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur. The communication of refusal to make reference under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, dated 11-7-2011 is under challenge in this writ petition. The reason for refusal is purportedly is belated dispute of 15 years. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that, undisputedly petitioner served the Railway Institute as casual labour in two spells; one from 1-6-1990 to 3-8-1990 and second from 4-8-1990 to 2-7-1991 totalling 333 days. Thereafter, for the reasons best known to the respondents/Railway Institute, petitioner's services were discontinued without notice to him and without compensation. Petitioner was running from pillar to post seeking continuity of his employment but to no avail. No sooner did he come to know about the circular of the respondents relating to regularisation of casual labourers issued in year 1996, petitioner immediately approached the Competent Authority by making a representation in prescribed proforma on 16-2-2000. It appears that the representation was kept in file and gathered dust. It did not receive any attention/consideration for a considerable long period by the Competent Authority. Petitioner again made a representation on 2-12-2002 (Annexure P-7), but even that did not yield any result. As suggested to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted a representation with more documents for consideration by the Competent Authority on 13-1-2003, but to no avail. Eventually, the petitioner having exhausted all possible efforts, sent a legal notice through his Advocate on 8-11-2004 (Annexure P-10), but respondents even did not respond the legal notice and in fact inertia was maintained. 3. Petitioner moved to the Assistant Labour Commissioner raising industrial dispute regarding discontinuation of his employment by the respondents. The dispute was seized by the Regional Labour Commissioner, notices were issued to the respondents. After protracted discussion on various dates as reflected from the report, the conciliation proceedings ended in failure and ultimately on 27-1-2011, the Regional Labour Commissioner, sent his failure report to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi (Annexure P-15). The Central Government by the impugned communication refused to make reference, purportedly for the reason that the dispute is of belated period of 15 years. 4. The Central Government by the impugned communication refused to make reference, purportedly for the reason that the dispute is of belated period of 15 years. 4. Respondent No. 3 contended that the petitioner never worked with the Railway Administration, he was serving in the Railway Institute, which is not a part of Western Railway and supported the order passed by the Central Government, impugned herein. 5. Shri Namdeo, learned Counsel appearing for the Central Government also supported the impugned order. 6. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act makes a provision for making reference at any time where the Appropriate Government is of the opinion that any dispute exists or is apprehended. As regards, scope of the authority of the Central Government and limitation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of decisions has interpreted the provisions as contained in section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act with special reference to the words "at any time". Reference may be made to a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sapan Kumar Pandit vs. U. P. State Electricity Board and others, AIR 2001 SC 2562 , in Para 8 has held as under: -- "8. The above section is almost in tune with section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the difference between these two provisions does not relate to the points at issue in this case. Though no time limit is fixed for making the reference for a dispute for adjudication, could any State Government revive a dispute which had submerged in stupor by long lapse of time and re-kindled by making a reference of it to adjudication ? The words at any time as used in the section are prima facie indicator to a period without boundary. But, such an interpretation making the power unending would be pedantic. There is inherent evidence in this sub-section itself to indicate that the time has some circumscription. The words where the Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended have to be read in conjunction with the words at any time. They are, in a way, complimentary to each other. The Governments power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be done only so long as the dispute exists. They are, in a way, complimentary to each other. The Governments power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication has thus one limitation of time and that is, it can be done only so long as the dispute exists. In other words, the period envisaged by the enduring expression at any time terminates with the eclipse of the industrial dispute. It, therefore, means that if the dispute existed on the day when the reference was made by the Government it is idle to ascertain the number of years, which elapsed since the commencement of the dispute to determine whether the delay would have extinguished the power of the Government to make the reference." 8. Further in the case of Kuldeep Singh vs. G. M. Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another, AIR 2011 SC 455 , in Para 21 has held as under : -- "21. In view of the above, law can be summarised that there is no prescribed time limit for the Appropriate Government to exercise it powers under section 10 of the Act. It is more so, in view of the language used, namely, if any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, the Appropriate Government at any time, refer the dispute to a Board or Court for enquiry. The reference sought for by the workman cannot be said to be delayed or suffering from a lapse when law does not prescribe any period of limitation for raising a dispute under section 10 of the Act. The real test for making a reference is whether at the time of the reference dispute exists or not and when it is made it is presumed that the State Government is satisfied with the ingredients of the provision, hence the Labour Court cannot go behind the reference. It is not open to the Government to go into the merit of the dispute concerned and once it is found that an industrial dispute exists then it is incumbent on the part of the Government to make reference. It cannot itself decide the merit of the dispute and it is for the Appropriate Court or Forum to decide the same. The satisfaction of the Appropriate Authority in the matter of making reference under section 10(1) of the Act is a subjective satisfaction. Normally, the Government cannot decline to make reference for laches committed by the workman. It cannot itself decide the merit of the dispute and it is for the Appropriate Court or Forum to decide the same. The satisfaction of the Appropriate Authority in the matter of making reference under section 10(1) of the Act is a subjective satisfaction. Normally, the Government cannot decline to make reference for laches committed by the workman. If adequate reasons are shown, the Government is bound to refer the dispute to the Appropriate Court or Forum for adjudication. Even though, there is no limitation prescribed for reference of dispute to the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, even so, it is only reasonable that the disputes should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and after conciliation proceedings have failed, particularly, when disputes relate to discharge of workman. If sufficient materials are not put forth for the enormous delay, it would certainly be fatal. However, in view of the explanation offered by the workman, in the case on hand, as stated and discussed by us in the earlier paragraphs, we do not think that the delay in the case on hand has been so culpable as to disentitle him any relief. We are also satisfied that in view of the details furnished and the explanation offered, the workman cannot be blamed for the delay and he was all along hoping that one day his grievance would be considered by the Management or by the State Government." 9. There is no cavil of doubt that the petitioner served the respondent/ Railway Institute for more than 333 days. It is not in dispute that the petitioner made all possible efforts and made sustained endeavours for redressal of his grievance, which ended up with the raising of industrial dispute seized by the Regional Labour Commissioner. Respondents appeared and adopted a non-co­operative attitude. The sequence of facts narrated above, in the opinion of this Court, there was no reason for the Central Government not to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal looking to the existence of dispute as reflects from the divergent views of both the parties. 10. Respondents appeared and adopted a non-co­operative attitude. The sequence of facts narrated above, in the opinion of this Court, there was no reason for the Central Government not to make a reference to the Industrial Tribunal looking to the existence of dispute as reflects from the divergent views of both the parties. 10. Besides the aforementioned, the binding precedents of Hon'ble Supreme Court, I may profitably refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. P. Irrigation Karamchari Sangh vs. State of M. P. and another, AIR 1985 SC 860 , with reference to the scope of authority and jurisdiction of Central Government, which is very limited and in fact, administrative in nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the only embargo in exercise of the power is that the dispute must exists and there is no limitation. It is not the case of the respondents that the industrial dispute does not exist between the petitioner and the respondents. Petitioner has not been stood idle and had made sustained efforts till the matter was agitated in conciliation proceedings. Provisions of Limitation Act have no application and cannot be pressed into service to deny relief on merits of dispute. That apart, as a matter of fact, plea regarding employer and employee relationship, delay/limitation, relief claimed and/or to be awarded do involve mix questions of law and facts and need to be addressed by the Tribunal before whom such pleadings can be filed and evidence can be led. None of the aforesaid issues have any relevance for refusal to make reference by the Central Government under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, in Paras 5 and 7 has further held as under : -- "5. We have considered the rival contentions raised before us. The High Court apparently has relied upon the following passage in Bombay Union of Journalists vs. State of Bombay, AIR 1964 SC 1617 : - '...... But it would not be possible to accept the plea that the Appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) or not. But it would not be possible to accept the plea that the Appropriate Government is precluded from considering even prima facie the merits of the dispute when it decides the question as to whether its power to make a reference should be exercised under section 10(1) read with section 12(5) or not. If the claim made is patently frivolous, or is clearly belated, the Appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference. Likewise, if the impact of the claim on the general relations between the employer and the employees in the region is likely to be adverse, the Appropriate Government may take that into account in deciding whether a reference should be made or not. We find that the approach made by the High Court was wrong and the reliance on the above passage on the facts of this case, is misplaced and unsupportable. This Court had made it clear in the same judgment in the sentence preceding the passage quoted above that it was the province of the Industrial Tribunal to decide the disputed questions of fact.' '...... Similarly, on disputed questions of fact, the Appropriate Government cannot purport to reach final conclusions, for that again would be the province of the Industrial Tribunal.....' Therefore, while conceding a very limited jurisdiction to the State Government to examine patent frivolousness of the demands, it is to be understood as a rule, that adjudication of demands made by workmen should be left to the Tribunal to decide. Section 10 permits Appropriate Government to determine whether dispute 'exists or is apprehended' and then refer it for adjudication on merits. The demarcated functions are -- (1) reference, (2) adjudication when a reference is rejected on the specious plea that the Government cannot bear the additional burden, it constitutes adjudication and thereby usurpation of the power of a quasi-judicial Tribunal by an Administrative Authority namely the Appropriate Government. In our opinion, the reasons given by the State Government to decline reference are beyond the powers of the Government under the relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. What the State Government has done in this case is not a prima facie examination of the merits of the question involved. In our opinion, the reasons given by the State Government to decline reference are beyond the powers of the Government under the relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. What the State Government has done in this case is not a prima facie examination of the merits of the question involved. To say that granting of dearness allowance equal to that of the employees of the Central Government would cost additional financial burden on the Government is to make a unilateral decision without necessary evidence and without giving an opportunity to the workmen to rebut this conclusion. This virtually amounts to a final adjudication of the demand itself. The demand can never be characterised as either perverse or frivolous. The conclusion so arrived at robs the employees of an opportunity to place evidence before the Tribunal and to substantiate the reasonableness of the demand. 7. There may be exceptional cases in which the State Government may, on a proper examination of the demand, come to a conclusion that the demands are either perverse or frivolous and do not merit a reference. Government should be very slow to attempt an examination of the demand with a view to decline reference and Courts will always be vigilant whenever the Government attempts to usurp the powers of the Tribunal for adjudication of valid disputes. To allow the Government to do so would be to render section 10 and section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act nugatory." 11. The adjudicatory mode for resolution of the dispute and difference between the management and the worker is with aim and object to ensure social justice to both the employer and the employees. It advances the sustained growth of the industry by providing peaceful and healthy working atmosphere at the work place. Existence of harmony and cordial relationship between the employer and employees is one of the pious objects of the Industrial Disputes Act. 12. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order of Central Government refusing to refer the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. The petition is allowed. The order dated 11-7-2011 is quashed. The Central Government is directed to refer the dispute to the Tribunal within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The petition is allowed. The order dated 11-7-2011 is quashed. The Central Government is directed to refer the dispute to the Tribunal within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. The Tribunal shall address upon the dispute as refer to it in accordance with law allowing both the parties to file their respective pleading and lead evidence. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.