ORDER : Rohit Arya, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the College of Agriculture, Gwalior previously known as Nehru Krishi Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Management') is directed against the award dated 29/03/2012 passed by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior in reference case No. 31/A/IDAct/2010 while answering the reference made by the State Government vide order dated 13/08/2010 whereby directed the petitioner/Management to pay arrears of salary and other benefits with effect from 01/02/2001 to 26/11/2010, i.e., the amount due to the respondent/workman. There is no order for reinstatement of the respondent/workman as he had already completed 62 years, i.e., the age of superannuation attained on 26/11/2010. 2. The terms of reference is quoted here in below: ^^D;k Jh ikrhjke firk Jh vksNkjke us laLFkku esa o"kZ esa 240 fnu dk;Z fd;k gS\ ;fn gkWa rks lsok fu;qDr dk fd;k x;k lsok i`Fkdhdj.k oS/k ,oa mfpr gS\ ;fn ugha rks os fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gSa] ,oa bl laca/k esa fu;ksDrk dks D;k funsZ'k fn;k tkuk pkfg,\** 3. The aforesaid award has been passed in the background of the facts that the respondent/workman worked with the petitioner/Management since February, 1976 but his services were discontinued with effect from 01/02/2001, i.e., after about 25 years. The respondent/workman's date of birth is 26/11/1948 as recorded in the Management's attendance register. 4. The respondent/workman claimed to have worked on the post of Chowkidar. The post of Chowkidar is described at Sl. No. 65 in the schedule appended to the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Rules, 1977. It is submitted that as per State Government's order dated 20/01/2000, the age of superannuation of Class IV employees is increased to 62 years. On 10/02/2004, the workman made a representation to the petitioner/Management to allow him to perform his duties upto the age of 62 years. Thereafter, on 07/01/2005, complaint was made to EPF Commissioner for non-release of the dues as regards the provident fund and other benefits. Having heard nothing from the Management to join the duties and the EPF Commissioner in response to the aforesaid representation and complaint, the respondent/workman filed W.P. (S) No. 1906 of 2005 (Patiram v. State of MP and another) before this Court. Having heard nothing from the Management to join the duties and the EPF Commissioner in response to the aforesaid representation and complaint, the respondent/workman filed W.P. (S) No. 1906 of 2005 (Patiram v. State of MP and another) before this Court. Though, the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 01/03/2006, however, the writ appeal No. 323 of 2009 arising out of the writ Court's order was permitted to be withdrawn by the workman with liberty to approach the appropriate forum vide order dated 21/08/2009. Accordingly, the workman took recourse to the machinery provided for under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.D. Act') and upon failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government referred the aforesaid quoted dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court No. 1, Gwalior. 5. The statement of claim filed by the workman is on record as Annexure P/2. 6. The respondent No. 2/Management i.e., Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Mahavidyalaya filed written statement on 21/10/2011. The written statement so filed bears averments of the nature of formal denial of the averments made in the statement of claim. In paragraph 2, it is stated that the workman was a seasonal employee, hence, I.D. Act was not applicable. In paragraph 11A, it is denied that the employee had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year, hence, not entitled for the relief claimed. The conduct of the employee was bad and, therefore, he was rightly terminated from the service. Apart from these assertions, there is no reply to the contentions raised in the statement of claim to the effect that the workman has worked from the year 1976 to the year 2001 and after the year 2001, he was not allowed to perform his duties. Discontinuance is without any notice and opportunity to the workman. No retrenchment compensation was paid and no departmental enquiry was held against the workman. 7. Upon perusal of the order sheets recorded by the labour Court, it is evident that the petitioner/Management chose to remain ex parte before the Labour Court and to this effect an order was passed on 16/11/2011. The Management had not led evidence. 8. No retrenchment compensation was paid and no departmental enquiry was held against the workman. 7. Upon perusal of the order sheets recorded by the labour Court, it is evident that the petitioner/Management chose to remain ex parte before the Labour Court and to this effect an order was passed on 16/11/2011. The Management had not led evidence. 8. That apart, on an application filed by the workman for production of service record, the labour Court on 20/12/2011 ordered for issuance of notice to the Management for production of the documents as it was proceeded ex parte on the last date, i.e., on 16/11/2011 and the case was posted for 06/02/2012. On 06/02/2012, the petitioner-Management in response to the notice appeared through counsel, however, the case was adjourned for 20/03/2012. On 20/03/2012, none appeared from the Management side and the documents ordered to be produced were not produced though noticed earlier. The respondent/workman led evidence and filed the documents. The workman has stated that since February, 1976 he has worked with the Management as Chowkidar and worked till 01/02/2001, the date from which he has been discontinued. Photo copies of relevant extracts of attendance register from February, 1976 to December, 1993 wherein his date of birth is shown as 26/11/1948 and the post of Chowkidar is mentioned at Sl. No. 65 of the Madhya Pradesh Work Charged/Contingency Paid Employees Service Condition Rules, the age of superannuation of Class IV employees has been increased from 60 years to 62 years vide State Government's circular dated 20/01/2000. The respondent/workman further referred to letter addressed to the petitioner/Management dated 10/02/2004 seeking permission to perform his duties upto the age of 62 years and the complaint before the EPF Commissioner dated 07/01/2005 for release of the dues towards PF and other benefits, order dated 21/08/2009 in W.A.No. 323 of 2009 passed by a Division Bench of this Court arising out of writ Court's order with liberty to take recourse to the forum available under law. These documents have been exhibited as Exhibits P/1, P/2, P/3, P/4 and P/5 respectively. Besides that, he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year through out his service as evident from extract of attendance register filed. Neither any notice was issued nor enquiry was held against him by the petitioner/Management before termination from service. He has also not been paid any retrenchment compensation. Besides that, he has worked for more than 240 days in a calender year through out his service as evident from extract of attendance register filed. Neither any notice was issued nor enquiry was held against him by the petitioner/Management before termination from service. He has also not been paid any retrenchment compensation. Petitioner/Management chose not to cross-examine the workman. 9. The labour Court upon critical examination of the material placed on record has passed the impugned award on 29/03/2012 wherein it has been found that the workman has served for more than 240 days in a calender year since the year 1976 and performing his duties till the date of his discontinuance. The workman has been discontinued from service with effect form 01/02/2001 without any reason or justification. Neither any notice nor enquiry was held against him before termination from service. As the discontinuance of the workman is otherwise than by way of disciplinary action, there is non-compliance of section 25F of the I.D. Act, i.e., non-payment of retrenchment compensation. Therefore, the discontinuance or termination of employment is illegal. The respondent/workman was held entitled for monetary claim as if he has worked till the date, he reaches the age of superannuation on 26/11/2010 after completing the age of 62 years. Accordingly, the labour Court ordered the Management for release of the salary and other benefits from 01/02/2001 to 26/11/2010 in favour of the respondent/workman. 10. The petitioner-Management has challenged the aforesaid award by filing this writ petition solely on the ground that reference of dispute by the State Government is bad in law as the same is barred by time, i.e., after more than 07 years ever since he ceased to be in employment, the reference was made for deciding the alleged dispute. Termination of the employment was justified as the respondent/workman had not worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner/Management has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contention. (i) Nedungadi Bank Ltd., v. K.P.Madhavankutty and others, (2000) 2 SCC 455 ; (ii) U.P. State Road Transport Corpn. v. Babu Ram, (2006) 5 SCC 433 ; (iii) Kuldeep Singh v. G.M.Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 455 ; and (iv)Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota v. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 12. v. Babu Ram, (2006) 5 SCC 433 ; (iii) Kuldeep Singh v. G.M.Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 455 ; and (iv)Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota v. Mohan Lal, (2013) 14 SCC 543 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/workman has submitted that there is no limitation prescribed under section 10 of the I.D. Act, empowering the appropriate Government to make reference of dispute to the labour Court/Tribunal. It is submitted that what is relevant, for the appropriate Government, is to consider as to whether the industrial dispute existed between the Management and the employee at the time of making reference. To bolster his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra). 13. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent/workman has worked as Chowkidar since February, 1976. He has continued upto the year 2001 and thereafter, he was denied further continuance for no rhym and reason. No notice was issued and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent/workman before taking the action of discontinuance from the employment. Even the respondent/workman has filed an application addressed to the petitioner/Management dated 10/02/2004 (exhibit P/1) requesting the Management to allow him to perform his duties and also filed a complaint before the EPF Commissioner dated 07/01/2005 (exhibit P/3) for release of the dues towards PF and other benefits. But to no avail. Under such circumstances, the respondent/workman has approached this Court by filing writ petition. The writ Court vide order dated 01/03/2006 passed in W.P. No. 1906 of 2005 dismissed the same and on filing W.A. No. 323 of 2009, the writ appeal was disposed of as withdrawn, however, the respondent/workman was granted liberty to take recourse to law vide order dated 21/08/2009 by a Division Bench of this Court (exhibit P/5). It is submitted that the aforesaid chain of events led to filing of an application under the I.D. Act for resolution of the dispute which ended in making reference by the appropriate Government under section 10 of the I.D. Act to the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior. It is submitted that in fact and in effect, the dispute did exist at the time of making reference. It is submitted that in fact and in effect, the dispute did exist at the time of making reference. Besides, there is no delay on the part of the workman to seek redressal of his grievance against unwarranted and illegal discontinuance from the employment. It is also submitted that the petitioner/Management did not cooperate in the course of adjudication proceedings and filed a skeleton written statement as no detailed reply was filed except denial of the averments made by the applicant/workman in the statement of claim. Besides, the petitioner/Management remained ex parte despite, notice being issued by the labour Court vide order dated 20/12/2011 on an application filed by the respondent /workman for production of documents as regards the service rendered by the respondent/workman. It is further submitted that though the petitioner/Management has put in appearance through a counsel on 06/02/2012, no evidence either oral or documentary has been led before the labour Court. Under such circumstances, the evidence led by the respondent/workman supported by the documentary evidence has rightly been accepted by the labour Court while passing the award. It is submitted that the law is well settled that if any document is in the possession and withheld it by a party then adverse inference can be drawn against such party. To bolster this submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas, (2004) 8 SCC 195 . Hence, the labour Court has not committed any jurisdictional error while passing the impugned award whereby no order of reinstatement has been passed instead, the labour Court held that the respondent/workman is entitled for the monetary benefits for the period from 01/02/2001 to 26/11/2010. With the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the objection raised by the petitioner/Management on the ground of limitation against the impugned award does not warrant interference by this Court in a writ petition exercising the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the same deserves to be dismissed. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. Law as regards jurisdiction of the appropriate Government in making a reference of industrial dispute before the labour Court/Tribunal under section 10 of the I.D. Act is well settled by catena of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. Law as regards jurisdiction of the appropriate Government in making a reference of industrial dispute before the labour Court/Tribunal under section 10 of the I.D. Act is well settled by catena of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. Relevant part of Section 10 of I.D. Act for ready reference is quoted below: 10. Reference of disputes to Boards, Courts or Tribunals. - (1) Where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended, it may at any time, by order in writing - (a) .... ..... .... (b) .... ..... .... (c) .... ..... .... (d) refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the dispute, whether it relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule, to a Tribunal for adjudication : Provided that where the dispute relates to any matter specified in the Third Schedule and is not likely to affect more than one hundred workmen, the appropriate Government may, if it so thinks fit, make the reference to a Labour Court under clause (c): Provided further that where the dispute relates to a public utility service and a notice under Section 22 has been given, the appropriate Government shall, unless it considers that the notice has been frivolously or vexatiously given or that it would be inexpedient so to do, make a reference under this sub-section notwithstanding that any other proceedings under this Act in respect of the dispute may have commenced: Provided also that where the dispute in the relation to which the Central Government is the appropriate Government, it shall be competent for the Government to refer the dispute to a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal, as the case may be, constituted by the State Government. (Emphasis supplied) 16. No period of limitation is prescribed within which the appropriate Government is required to make a reference of the dispute. The legislature consciously used the word "at any time" which means that the power of the appropriate Government is not subject to the law of limitation and such power can be exercised provided the industrial dispute existed or apprehended between the employee and the Management at the time of making reference. 17. The legislature consciously used the word "at any time" which means that the power of the appropriate Government is not subject to the law of limitation and such power can be exercised provided the industrial dispute existed or apprehended between the employee and the Management at the time of making reference. 17. In the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd., (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed the view that the appropriate Government in exercise of its powers under section 10 I.D. Act cannot revive matters which have already been settled by making reference of the alleged dispute and that too after settlement ignoring the delay caused seeking reference. The Court viewed that such power can be exercised within a reasonable time. The facts involved in the aforesaid judgment are distinguishable to the facts in hand inasmuch as in the aforesaid case, the termination order was passed in the departmental disciplinary proceedings and thereafter monetary benefits available were settled and accepted by the workman. After seven years of such settlement, a dispute was sought to be raised by the workman for which there was no explanation. There was no grievance as regards disciplinary proceedings conducted against the workman except the stale claim based on alleged parity with two other employees dismissed in similar situation were reinstated. 18. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corpn., (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find any justification for reference of the dispute by the Central Government under section 10(1)(d) of I.D. Act vide order dated 29/08/1998 after lapse of time in respect of the termination of the workman dated 19/09/1983 for the reason that no material was placed before the Court as to why the dispute was not raised within a reasonable time and/or that the workman was responsible for the delay. The approach of the High Court was found to be hypothetical in nature which assumed that the dispute might have been raised promptly but delayed by the State Government and for that reason, the workman could not have been penalised. Again the facts in hand are distinguishable, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner/Management. 19. The approach of the High Court was found to be hypothetical in nature which assumed that the dispute might have been raised promptly but delayed by the State Government and for that reason, the workman could not have been penalised. Again the facts in hand are distinguishable, therefore, the aforesaid judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner/Management. 19. In the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court again dealt with the question of limitation in the context of powers of the State Government and while bestowing its conscious consideration on the provisions as contained under section 10 of the I.D. Act, observed that the section does not admit of any limitation and what is relevant is the existence of a dispute at the time of making a reference by the Central Government. Further, it is observed that the Government cannot decline for making reference on account of laches committed by the workman, if adequate reasons are shown as the Government is not required to enter into the merits of the dispute as that is to be addressed by the Industrial Court/Tribunal upon reference being made. The discharge simpliciter by way of disciplinary action without compliance of section 25F of the I.D. Act was found to be illegal. The workman made a representation against such discharge seeking reinstatement. However, his representation was kept pending and, therefore, the delay caused in making a reference by the Government is found to be not attributable to the workman. Since, there was wrongful discharge without compliance of section 25F of the I.D. Act, the Supreme Court found that the dispute existed for reference and, accordingly, found no fault for reference by the Government though after sufficient lapse of time. Resultantly, the workman was ordered to be reinstated in service without back wages. Hence, this judgment is also of no assistance to the petitioner/Management. 20. In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota (supra), the same issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court as regards the nature of power and scope of jurisdiction of the appropriate Government in the matter of making reference of the industrial dispute before the appropriate forum by the appropriate Government in exercise of the powers under section 10(1)(d) or 101A of the I.D.Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently observed that the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. Besides, while exercising its judicial discretion, the labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief. The aforesaid judgment is rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the backdrop of the fact that the workman had worked as work charged employee for a period from 01-11-1984 to 17/02/1986, in all he had worked for 286 days. The services of the workman were terminated with effect from 18/02/1986 and the industrial dispute was raised after 06 years of discontinuance. However, the labour Court had granted the award of reinstatement and the relief was modified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by awarding lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-, relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on earlier occasions. The judgment is distinguishable on facts with the present case and is of no assistance to the petitioner/Management. 21. Now, turning to the facts in hand, it is found that the workman had claimed to have worked from February, 1976 till the date of discontinuance with effect from 01/02/2001. He has filed an extract of the attendance register wherein his date of birth is shown as 26/11/1948 (exhibit P/1), representation/application before the Management dated 10/02/2004 (exhibit P/3) seeking permission to join the duties and also complaint dated 07/01/2005 (exhibit P/4) before the EPF Commissioner for release of the amount due to him. No action was taken by granting either of the reliefs claimed by the petitioner, i.e., permission to join the duties and the release of the amount due to him. The workman approached the High Court for redressal of his grievance by filing W.P.(S) No. 1906 of 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01/03/2006. Against the writ Court's order, W.A.No. 323 of 2009 was preferred. The workman approached the High Court for redressal of his grievance by filing W.P.(S) No. 1906 of 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 01/03/2006. Against the writ Court's order, W.A.No. 323 of 2009 was preferred. The writ appellate Court permitted the workman to withdraw the writ appeal vide order dated 21/08/2009 (exhibit P/5), however, liberty was granted to approach the appropriate forum. Thereafter, the workman is found to have rightly approached the appropriate Government for reference of the dispute for the reasons; (i) there was no reasonable justification for discontinuance from service after completion of about 25 years of service; (ii) the discontinuance was not by way of disciplinary action as the same is without issuance of any notice, no enquiry was held following due procedure and, therefore, under the circumstances, for want of payment of retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25F of the I.D. Act., it was illegal retrenchment, hence bad in law; (iii) a dispute existed as against the arbitrary and illegal discontinuance of service, accordingly; the appropriate Government has referred the dispute to the labour Court No.1, Gwalior. That apart, before the labour Court, the workman has filed a detailed statement of claim and documentary evidence which have been duly exhibited as exhibit P/1 to exhibit P/5 as narrated here in above, the workman has also filed an application before the labour Court for issuance of a direction to the petitioner/Management for production of the service record. The petitioner/Management has filed a skeleton reply but no detailed reply has been filed controverting the assertions made in the statement of claim. The petitioner/Management proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16/11/2011. No evidence was led by the petitioner/Management oral and documentary despite, orders passed by the Labour Court to bring on record the service record duly communicated to the petitioner/Management for production of the record, the same was not produced. Under such circumstances, the evidence led by the respondent/workman was duly considered by the labour Court. The labour Court reached a conclusion that there was non-compliance of section 25F of the I.D.Act. Under such circumstances, the evidence led by the respondent/workman was duly considered by the labour Court. The labour Court reached a conclusion that there was non-compliance of section 25F of the I.D.Act. Hence, the termination was bad in law and accordingly, instead of ordering for reinstatement has awarded the arrears of salary and other monetary benefits for the period from 01/02/2001 to 26/11/2010, which he would have earned if he was not discontinued from service as he has been arbitrarily denied the right to serve the petitioner/Management till the date of his retirement. Therefore, the sequence of events do suggest that the dispute between the workman and the petitioner/Management did exist; a jurisdictional fact required to be kept in mind by the appropriate Government for making reference under section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.Act in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh (supra). True it is, reference has been made by the appropriate Government vide order dated 13/08/2010 despite discontinuance from service with effect from 01/02/2001 but after having appreciated that a dispute existed at the relevant time. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the delay caused in making reference cannot be claimed to be a ground for denying the relief granted to the workman, particularly for the reason that the entire delay cannot be attributed to the workman as there was apparent inaction on the part of the petitioner/Management. Besides, the conduct of the petitioner/Management, i.e., total avoidance to participate in the adjudication process before the labour Court cannot be ignored. 22. In the opinion of this Court, by the impugned award, the labour Court has done complete justice between the parties bearing in mind the concept of justice, equity and good conscience. No illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the labour Court while passing the impugned award. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 23. No illegality or jurisdictional error has been committed by the labour Court while passing the impugned award. Hence, no interference is warranted in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 23. Before parting with the case, it is considered apposite to direct that the petitioner/Management shall ensure release of the monetary benefits ensured to the workman by the award dated 29/03/2012 within a reasonable time, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed by this Court today by the respondent/workman.