JUDGMENT 1. - With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is heard finally. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20th September, 2013 and 20th May, 2014. 3. It is a case where on a reference, pleading was completed by the parties followed by the evidence. At the stage of final arguments, the Industrial Tribunal permitted to seek amendment in the reference. The reference dated 17th June, 1987 was then amended vide order dated 21st November, 2007. The petitioner herein raised two objections before the o Industrial Tribunal, First is in regard to take the order dated 21st November, 2007 on record. It is mainly on the ground that date of original reference is of 17th June, 1987 whereas it is referred to be 16th June, 1987 in the order dated 21st November, 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to forgo the aforesaid objection being technical in nature. It seems to be 5 nothing but a typographical error in the order dated 21st November, 2007 while referring the date of previous order of reference. In fact, vide the order dated 21st November, 2007, the previous reference dated 17th June, 1987 was amended. In view of the above, the challenge to the order dated 20th September, 2013 has not been pressed. 4. The issue now remains in regard to the order dated 20th May, 2014. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that once the reference has been amended, a new inning should not have been played. The respondent Sangh was required to submit statement of claim to be replied by the petitioner followed by evidence. Learned Industrial Tribunal has denied the aforesaid opportunity, rather vide the impugned order dated 20th May, 2014, it is ordered to rely on the pleading as well as evidence led by the parties previously. It is in ignorance of the fact that when the reference has been amended, proceedings would start afresh from the date of amendment in the reference. The pleading as well as evidence cannot be relied. 6. It is further stated that if, at all, the pleading is to be relied by the parties, reliance of the evidence can be with the consent of parties and not otherwise. The pleading as well as evidence cannot be relied. 6. It is further stated that if, at all, the pleading is to be relied by the parties, reliance of the evidence can be with the consent of parties and not otherwise. In view of the above, let the workman submit statement of claim within a week to be replied by the management within another week thereafter. The petitioner would not lead new evidence but should be provided liberty to cross examine the witnesses produced by the employee. With the aforesaid modification, the impugned order may be set aside. 7. A reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Madan Pal Singh v. State of UP & Ors. reported in AIR 2000 SC 537 . 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and scanned the matter carefully. 9. It is a case where original reference was made on 17th June, 1987 on the following terms, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference : THE SCHEDULE "Whether the action of the management of M/s Eastern Engineering Enterprises, Udaipur Contractor, M/s Rajasthan Mines & Minerals Ltd. (A Govt, of Rajasthan undertaking). Udaipur in retrenching the 137 workmen of their Rockphosphate Mine is just and legal? If not, what relief are the workmen concerned entitled to?" 10. After the reference, the pleadings were completed by both the parties followed by the evidence. The objection was not initially raised that the reference dated 17th June, 1987 does not contain the date of retrenchment. It is to the surprise of this Court that the Industrial Tribunal thought it proper to get the amendment in the reference. It is settled law that if the terms of the reference narrates about disputes, ancillary question can very well be answered. The pleading by the parties was in consonance to the initial term of reference giving out the dispute. No challenge was made immediately to the terms of the reference. In any case, in pursuance to the order of Tribunal, the Government amended the terms of reference vide its order dated 21st November, 2007. The pleading by the parties was in consonance to the initial term of reference giving out the dispute. No challenge was made immediately to the terms of the reference. In any case, in pursuance to the order of Tribunal, the Government amended the terms of reference vide its order dated 21st November, 2007. The amended reference is also quoted hereunder for ready reference : "Whether the action of the management of M/s Eastern Engineering Enterprises, Udaipur, Contractor, M/s. Rajasthan/Mines & Mineral Ltd. (A Govt, of Rajasthan Undertaking), Udaipur in retrenching the 137 workmen w.e.f. 30th July, 1985 is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? 11. The perusal of the two references, quoted above, reveals no change in the question to be answered by the Industrial Tribunal other than for narration of date of retrenchment. It is not a case where in pursuance to the original reference, the jurisdiction of the industrial Tribunal was not made out as was in the case of Madan Pal Singh (supra). 12. In the opinion of the Court, reference should have been answered as was originally made by the appropriate government. The narration of date of retrenchment in the amended reference does not change the complexion of the dispute. The respondent Sangh is not intend to change the pleading so as to evidence led by it previously because it makes narration of all the required facts to answer the reference. The employee is thus relying on the pleading as well as evidence, already led. The dispute is pending before the Industrial Tribunal for last 27 years. The legislature thought that as to when the dispute would be referred to the labour Court, it would be decided within six months, though period aforesaid is taken to be directory and not mandatory in nature. Nobody thought that a dispute would not be answered even in a period of 27 years. I am not holding that on the ground of delay itself, interference in the impugned order should not be made but looking to the facts of this case. I do not find any ground to allow the plea raised by the petitioner herein. 13. In the case of Madan Pal Singh (supra), the position of fact was different. Therein, the dispute was referred without mentioning name of the labour/employee correctly. I do not find any ground to allow the plea raised by the petitioner herein. 13. In the case of Madan Pal Singh (supra), the position of fact was different. Therein, the dispute was referred without mentioning name of the labour/employee correctly. The correction was sought to make it industrial dispute between the employer and employee. It was thus a case where dispute between the employer and employee came on the date of amendment in the reference. The facts of this case are altogether different. It is not that the original reference was not disclosing the dispute between employer and employee but can be said to be without mentioning the date of retrenchment, which has now been mentioned in the amended reference. In the background aforesaid, the facts of this case are not similar to that of Madan Pal Singh (supra). In any case, in the judgment supra also, the Hon'ble Apex Court permitted the parties to rely on the evidence already led. The judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not disclose that parties had given their consent to rely on the evidence already led by them. The Hon'ble Apex Court yet directed that whatever evidence, already led prior to the amendment in the reference, would be considered by the labour Court. Para Nos. 14 to 16 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference : "14 During the course of adjudication proceedings no one was in doubt about the identity of the workman that it was madan Pal Singh. The management did not raise the preliminary objection about the validity of the reference on the ground that no workman by the name Madan Lal was in its employment and so the reference was bad. Evidence had been led before the Labour Court and it is only at the fag end of the proceedings that it was stated by the management that there was no Madan Lal in its employment. No doubt, initially the fault lay on the workman himself when he gave wrong name and then did not pursue for correction of the name. There may have been causes for delay but it cannot be said that the appellant is solely to be blamed for all this. Tirelessly and single handed he has been fighting his case against the might of the State undertaking. There may have been causes for delay but it cannot be said that the appellant is solely to be blamed for all this. Tirelessly and single handed he has been fighting his case against the might of the State undertaking. If he was in fault to any extent in the delay of disposal of his case all these years and if ultimately he is found to be entitled to relief, the Court can certainly mould the relief suitably. Equitable considerations can certainly be taken into account in such a case. 15. When it came to its notice that the name of the workman was not correctly mentioned in the reference though there was no doubt about his identity the Labour Court itself could have sought correction of the reference from the State Government. When the appellant approached the State Government for correcting the reference, Labour Court certainly could have waited till the State Government amended the reference or otherwise. If the Labour Court did not possess jurisdiction inasmuch as there was no industrial dispute because there was no workman in respect of whom industrial dispute was sought to be raised, the reference itself was non east and the award a nullity. When the reference had been amended, jurisdiction stood conferred on the Labour Court and it would have held proceedings from the stage taking the reference to be valid from the date of its amendment. With the consent of the parties it could have relied upon the evidence which it had recorded before the reference was amended. Whatever the situation this Court cannot permit injustice to perpetuate. 16. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and so is the Award dated January 31, 1992 of the Labour Court. Matter will go back to the Labour Court to adjudicate the industrial dispute now' between the workman Madan Pal Singh and the management being the NOIDA. It shall take on record the evidence which had already been recorded earlier before the amendment of the reference and, if necessary, grant further opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, matter being old we need not stress for the expeditious disposal of the reference by the Labour Court." 14. It shall take on record the evidence which had already been recorded earlier before the amendment of the reference and, if necessary, grant further opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, matter being old we need not stress for the expeditious disposal of the reference by the Labour Court." 14. The perusal of the paras, quoted above, reveals that after pleading and evidence before the labour court, the objection raised that employee in the name of Madan Lal does not exist, rather it is Madan Pal Singh was dealt with. In absence of name of the labour/employee, the dispute could not be taken between the employer and employee, hence, amendment was permitted. In Para No. 16, a direction was given to consider the evidence led by the parties without a direction to amend the pleadings. The consent of the parties has not been recorded for it. The Industrial Tribunal herein has been ordered the same as was by the Supreme Court in the case supra. In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find that judgment in the case of Madan Lal provides any assistance to the petitioner, rather final direction therein supports the order impugned herein. 15. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to cause interference in the impugned order dated 10th May, 2014. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed so as the stay application. 16. The Industrial Tribunal is directed to hear and decide the dispute on the next date of hearing, already fixed. The matter is old by more than 27 years and delay in disposal of the industrial dispute cannot be appreciated, rather needs to be depricated. The labour Court/Industrial Tribunal should manage the proceedings in such a manner where industrial disputes are decided at the earliest.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******