JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. 1. A very substantial question is raised in this writ application. The question is: whether a second order of reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), after a substantial gap of time, is maintainable, in respect of the self-same issues which were similarly referred earlier and in respect of which a "no dispute Award" was passed by the Industrial Tribunal on account of absence of the parties? 2. The respondent workman represents the other three workmen involved. On 29th May, 1999, 25 (twenty five) workmen of Hindustan Engineering and Industries Limited, the writ petitioners were dismissed from service on charges of staying away from work, indiscipline, dereliction of duty, subversive activities against the company and so on. This was preceded by a Charge sheet dated 27th May 1995 and an enquiry. 3. On 10th February 2000, the disputes between the writ petitioner-company and their workmen represented by Hindusthan Development Corporation Ltd., Shramik Union (Santragachi Plant) were referred under Section 10 of the said Act to the Industrial Tribunal on the following issues: (i) Whether the dismissal of 25 (Twenty five) workmen as mentioned in the Annexures to the Order of Reference justified? (ii) What relief, if any are the workmen entitled to? 4. Mr. Partha Bhanja Chowdhury, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the disputes with regard to 21 (twenty one) out of 25 (twenty five) workmen were settled by a settlement arrived at between the petitioner-company and these workmen and/or the union. The referred dispute remained alive with regard to 4 (four) workmen namely Panchanan Patra, Rabin Ghosh (Rabindra Nath Ghosh), Sk. Kayum and Sk. Ismail. Learned counsel took me through the order sheets of the Tribunal dated 7th May, 2007; 8th June, 2007 and 1st August 2007, where inter-alia it was recorded that most of the workmen had settled their disputes amicably. It appears from the records that on 1st August 2007 between 11 a.m. and 12.20 p.m. the case was called on thrice before the learned Judge, when nobody appeared for the parties. On that day itself the learned Judge of the First Industrial Tribunal made and published a "no dispute Award". 5. On 22nd June 2009 the 4 (four) workmen approached the Conciliation Officer at Howrah, with regard to the self-same issue. On that day itself the learned Judge of the First Industrial Tribunal made and published a "no dispute Award". 5. On 22nd June 2009 the 4 (four) workmen approached the Conciliation Officer at Howrah, with regard to the self-same issue. The Conciliation officer arranged several meetings between the parties but no consensus could be arrived at. Thereafter these 4 (four) workmen preferred a writ application in this Court (WP No. 28188(W) of 2012), where on 15th May 2014 Mr. Justice Soumen Sen directed the Government to take a decision in the matter within four weeks of communication of the order. Under those circumstances the second order of reference under Section 10 of the said Act was made on 3rd March, 2015. The issues were identical to the one framed in the year 2000 except that they were confined to 4 (four) workmen only. 6. Now according to the petitioners the order of reference dated 3rd March 2015, should not be proceeded with. The question which necessarily arises is whether this Court could pass an order stopping the reference? First of all, I would like to state that when a dispute is not decided on merits, it is possible to make a fresh reference to the Industrial Tribunal to decide the self-same dispute at a later point of time. 7. The facts of Virendra Bhandari and Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. cited by learned counsel for the respondent workmen decided by the Supreme Court and reported in 2002 (94) FLR 624 are similar to the case at hand. The parties did not appear before the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal held that there was no dispute between the parties. But within one year, and in my opinion this period of time is very important, the Government made a fresh reference to the Tribunal and it made an Award after adjudication. The High Court found that where the Tribunal had earlier found that there was no dispute, the issue could not be reopened by it later. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that there was no adjudication. It is to be noted that in this case, cited by learned counsel for the workmen, the second order of reference was made after a year or so. 8. The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court on the ground that there was no adjudication. It is to be noted that in this case, cited by learned counsel for the workmen, the second order of reference was made after a year or so. 8. A division Bench of our Court in B.R. Herman & Mohatta (India) (Pvt.) Ltd. v. The Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal & Ors. cited by the said learned counsel, reported in 1977 LAB I.C. (NOC.) 13 (CAL.) opined that a "no dispute Award" was not an award at all. The Government had the power to refer the dispute again to the Tribunal. 9. The Supreme Court in Bombay Union of Journalists & Ors v. State of Bombay & Anr. reported in AIR 1964 SC 1617 , also cited by Mr. Bhanja Chowdhuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, held that if a claim was clearly belated, the appropriate Government may refuse to make a reference. In a later decision the same Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors. reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 , also cited by Mr. Bhanja Chowdhuri, remarked that in exercise of its power under Section 10 of the said Act, the Government should not reopen a stale dispute. The power was to be exercised reasonably and in a rational manner. In Reserve Bank of India v. Gopinath Sharma & Anr. reported in (2006) 6 SCC 221 , the highest Court expressed a similar opinion also cited by Mr. Bhanja Chowdhury. 10. Normally a writ does not lie against the exercise of power by the Government under Section 10 of the said Act. In ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd. (Now known as Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd.) v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2005) 12 SCC 738 the Supreme Court held that when on the face of it a reference under Section 10 of the said Act was bad, the Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This decision was cited by Mr. Bhanja Chowdhuri 11. In this case the charge sheet was dated 27th May 1995. The order of dismissal was made on 29th May, 1999. The first Order of reference was dated 10th February 2000. A "no dispute Award" was made on 1st August 2007. The respondent tried to revive the dispute in 2009. This decision was cited by Mr. Bhanja Chowdhuri 11. In this case the charge sheet was dated 27th May 1995. The order of dismissal was made on 29th May, 1999. The first Order of reference was dated 10th February 2000. A "no dispute Award" was made on 1st August 2007. The respondent tried to revive the dispute in 2009. A fresh order of reference was made on 3rd March 2015. The second Order of Reference was made almost twenty years after the date of issuance of the Charge Sheet, fifteen years after the first Order of Reference and almost eight years after the first Reference was concluded by a "no dispute Award". In my opinion the dispute, if any, is dead by the passage of time. Any order of this Court, trying to revive the issue would be against all canons of fair play. The Supreme Court in the cases discussed above has time and again prohibited reopening of such stale disputes. This writ succeeds. It is allowed by passing an order in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. No order as to costs. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Writ Petition succeeds.