JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Smt. Sumangala Chakalabbi, learned Counsel appearing for Sri A.C. Chakalabbi, for Petitioner, Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 1st Respondent and Sri Girish Hiregoudar, learned panel Counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent. 2. Petitioner claiming to have worked as a ‘Literate Assistant’ in the office of 1st Respondent sought for being reinstated and granted consequential benefits and challenging his alleged illegal termination of service with effect from 20.12.1985, approached the appropriate Government seeking reference of his dispute to Labour Court. Accordingly, appropriate Government made a reference under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), to the Labour Court, Hubli. On such reference being made, Labour Court registered the same as Ref. No.3/2012 and issued Notices to the parties and both the parties namely the Claimant and Respondents appeared and filed their respective pleadings namely Claim Statement and Objection Statement. 3. It was contended by that Claimant in his Claim Statement that he joined the services of 1st Respondent in the month of January 1983 and had worked as a ‘Literate Assistant’ at Katkol and without conducting any enquiry and without paying retrenchment Compensation, his services came to be terminated with effect from 20.12.1985 illegally. It was also contended that he had worked continuously for 240 days in 1st Respondent’s office and assurance was given by the Respondent-Authorities that he would be reinstated. When other colleagues who had worked with petitioner were reinstated, Petitioner was told to approach Daily Wages’ Association and as such, he had approached the President of Daily Wagers’ Association, who entrusted the papers to one Sri M.M. Joshi, Vice president of the Union and though he had assured that he would pursue his claim, he did not pursue it and later on he expired and as such, Petitioner had approached one Sri M.A. Limbikai, Advocate, who had also assured and promised that claim of the Petitioner would be pursued and on account of Petitioner having not heard anything from the said Advocate and having learnt that the said Advocate had become an MLC and not attending to Courts, he moved the matter for Conciliation and accordingly, reference came to be made to the Labour Court for adjudication. Hence, he sought for reinstatement and payment of Back Wages and award of all consequential benefits flowing from such reinstatement. 4. Hence, he sought for reinstatement and payment of Back Wages and award of all consequential benefits flowing from such reinstatement. 4. Respondent filed its Written Statement, denied the relationship of ‘Employer’ and ‘Employee’ and it was specifically contended that, at no point of time, Petitioner had worked either as temporary wage Employee or in any capacity. It was also contended that persons, who are employed on Daily Wages was for the specific work and was for a specific project and on such project being completed, those Employees have not continued to work. It was also contended that Respondent-Authorities have been maintaining Nominal Muster Roll Sheet (for short ‘NMRS’) in which the names of those persons, who are or were working and who had been paid wages has been indicated and Respondent having verified all the NMRS for the period January 1983 to 1985 found that name of the Petitioner/Claimant not having been entered. It was also contended that Petitioner has raised a false claim that too after 25 years. Hence, on the ground of delay also, they sought for reference being answered against the Workman and in favour of the Respondents. 5. Two points, which came to be referred by the approp0riate Government relates to the issue of delay in raising a claim i.e., after a period of 24 years 6 months and the second reference relates to whether there has been illegal termination of the Petitioner with effect from 20.12.1985. After Claim Petition and statement of objections came to be filed, following issues came to be framed by the Labour Court for its adjudication and it reads as under: “(i) Whether the Claimant proves the relationship of Employee and Employer between himself and the Respondent? (ii) Whether the Claimant proves that he worked with the Respondent continuously for 240 days preceding 20.12.1985? (iii) Whether the Claimant’s claim has became stale on account of delay of 24 years 6 months? (iv) Whether the Respondent is justified in dismissing the Claimant from service by its Order dated 20.12.1985? (v) If not, to what relief the Claimant is entitled?” 6. Parties got themselves examined and tendered not only oral evidence but also documentary evidence and after evaluation of such evidence. (iv) Whether the Respondent is justified in dismissing the Claimant from service by its Order dated 20.12.1985? (v) If not, to what relief the Claimant is entitled?” 6. Parties got themselves examined and tendered not only oral evidence but also documentary evidence and after evaluation of such evidence. Labour Court, arrived at a conclusion that there is inordinate delay in raising the claim or in other words, Labour Court held that it as a stale claim and even on merits of the claim it found that Claimant-Workman had failed to establish or prove that he had been employed by the Respondent-Authorities on there being illegal termination of his services. Hence, Reference came to be answered against the Claimant-Workman by the Reference Court by Award dated 5.10.2013 – Annexure-A which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 7. It is the contention of Smt. Sumangala Chakalabbi, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/Workman that when Reference has been adjudicated upon merits and there being no time frame fixed for seeking Reference issue of delay would not acquire significance and contends that genuine claim cannot be thrown out on said ground and as such, she would contend the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the issue of delay is liable to be set aside. She would also contend that even on merits Workman had produced copy of NMR and it was marked as Ex.W4 which indicated Claimant-Workman had worked in the office of 1st Respondent for the period, January 1983 to 1985 and she submits that Labour Court has not appreciated said evidence in proper perspective. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the following Judgments: “(i) Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd, and another, 1999 (2) LLN 674 (SC) : AIR 1999 SC 1351 ; (ii) Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board, 2001 (3) LLN 861 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 2562 .” 8. Per contra, Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 1st Respondent and Sri Girish Hiregoudar, learned Counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent would support the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court and they pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Per contra, Sri Ravi V. Hosamani, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for 1st Respondent and Sri Girish Hiregoudar, learned Counsel appearing for 2nd Respondent would support the Judgment and Award passed by the Reference Court and they pray for dismissal of the Writ Petition. They would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka and another v. Ravi Kumar, 2009 (3) LLN 604 (SC): 2009 (13) SCC 746 , to contend that on account of inordinate delay in raising the dispute, Reference Court has rightly rejected the Reference. 9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after bestowing my careful and anxious conside4ration to rival contentions raised by respective learned Advocates, this Court is of the considered view that Award passed by the Reference Court is liable to be affirmed for the following reasons: 10. Petitioner, who clams to have been appointed as an ‘Literate Assistant’ in the office of the 1st Respondent in the year 1983 did not produce even iota of evidence to prove that he had worked in the said office at any point of time. It is no doubt true that he has very heavily relied upon Ex.W4, copy of the NMRS issued by the Executive Engineer, M.L.B.C.C. Division, Ramdurg, to buttress his argument that he had worked from 17.1.1984 to 20.12.1985. In fact to prove his case, said document was produced. However, it was marked subject to objection since it was a photo copy. In order to prove the contents of Ex.W4, an attempt came to be made by the Workman by filing an Application before the Labour Court calling upon the Respondent to produce the Measurement Book and Payment Book of the year 1984 namely for the period December, 1984 to December, 1985. Though said Application was opposed, learned Counsel appearing for 1st Respondent had submitted before the Labour Court that said books are voluminous in nature which has been stored in 11 Almirah and it would be next to impossible to search for any particular book and as such, it was submitted that Workman himself can visit the office of Respondent and locate the said book and if found can produce the same before the Labour Court for which it would have no objection. Hence, Labour Court accepted the submission made by learned Counsel appearing for Respondent-Authorities and directed both the learned Advocates to visit the office of the Respondent-Company and to verify the books and to unearth the book which the Claimant relied upon by fixing the date of their visit as 15.5.2013. Accordingly, Claimant along with his Advocate visited the office of Respondents, searched and found that there is no such document or book available in the Office of the 1st Respondent. In this background, Labour Court has rightly found that Ex.W4 which is a pho9to copy cannot be relied upon and as such, discarded such evidence, rightly so. 11. The Labour Court has also taken note of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Glasstech Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Workmen, rep. by Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, Mumbai and others, 2013 91) LLN 119 (Bom.) : 2013 (2) LLJ 159, wherein it has been held that the onus is on the Workman to plead and prove that he was gainfully employed in the organization. The reason assigned by the Labour Court to reject the claim of the Petitioner/Workman on merits also cannot be found fault with. 12. Turning my attention to the issue of delay, it requires to be noticed that Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nedungadi Bank Limited v. K.P. Madhavan Kutty and others, 2000 (2) LLN 21 (SC) : 2000 (2) SCC 455 , has held though law does not prescribe any time limit for the appropriate Government exercising its power under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, such reference cannot be sought at any point of time or revive matters which have already been settled. In other words, it has been held by the Apex Court that stale claim ought not to be entertained. 13. It is not the case of Petitioner in the instant case that there was any Disciplinary proceedings reading against the Petitioner-Workman or he had continued in service even after 20.12.1985 so as to contend that he was subsequently prevented from discharging his duties. His specific case that he was prevented from discharging his duties or in other words, illegally terminated from 20.12.1985. If it were to be so, it was incumbent upon the Workman to have sought for Reference immediately thereafter. He did not choose to do so. His specific case that he was prevented from discharging his duties or in other words, illegally terminated from 20.12.1985. If it were to be so, it was incumbent upon the Workman to have sought for Reference immediately thereafter. He did not choose to do so. He kept quiet for 25 long years to raise his little finger or in other words, he cannot contend that the termination dated 20.12.1985 is illegal after 25 years by which time records if any would also be lost. Thus, the issue of delay requires to be examined depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh v. Executive Engineer, 2008 (1) LLJ 289, has had Labour Court cannot invalidate the reference on the ground of delay. In the instant case, Reference itself would indicate that issue regarding delay was required to be considered, examined and answered by the Reference Court. In this background, Reference Court has accordingly answered the issue of delay against the Clamant/Workman holding that the Claimant/Workman has failed to explain the inordinate delay of 25 years in not approaching the appropriate Government seeking Reference and as such, he would not be entitled to the relief sought for. 14. Having said so, it has also embarked upon conducting a roving enquiry on the merits of the case to ensure that the lis comes to an end which has already been discussed hereinabove by this Court. In that view of the matter, this Occur is of the considered view that the Award passed by the Labour Court rejecting the reference of the Workman both on merits as well as on the ground of delay and laches does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever. Hence, Writ Petition is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the Addl. Labour Court dated 5.10.2013 in Reference No.3/2012 stands affirmed. No costs. Ordered accordingly. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file Memo of appearance within four weeks.