Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner was engaged by the respondents on daily wage basis in the year 1992. His services were orally terminated by the respondents without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-G and F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the time of termination, the petitioner was assured by the respondents that he would be re-employed as and when work is available, but the Department is stated to have appointed the junior persons than the petitioner, who are still continuing but the petitioner has not been given appointment. 2. The petitioner raised Demand/industrial disputes against his termination on 10.2.2014, before the Labour Commissioner for referring the matter to the State Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, for short ‘the Industrial Tribunal’, but the Labour Commissioner refused to refer the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for the reason that there was 22 years delay in raising the dispute, vide order dated 31.12.2015 Annexure P-1. 3. The petitioner, by the medium of this writ petition has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the order annexure P1, made by the Labour Commissioner and a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to refer the disputes for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, on the grounds taken in the writ petition. 4. The petitioner has chosen to remain in deep slumber for more than two decades and has come out of deep slumber after more than 22 years. While going through the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner remained contented with the order of his termination, had not made any murmur for making reference. It is only after noticing the judgment of the apex Court in Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Cooperative Societies Ltd reported in AIR 1999 SC 1351 , Raghubir Singh versus General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar, reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5515, which has been relied upon by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No. 9467 of 2014 titled as Pratap Chand versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, being the lead case, decided on 30.12.2014 and in so many cases, has set aside the orders and directed the Labour Commissioner to make reference to the Industrial Tribunal. Thus, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the writ petition is only because of the judgment made by the apex Court and the judgments made by this Court, is suggestive of the fact that the petitioner was fence-sitter and watching what will happen to other cases. The petitioner has not made any murmur till the judgments were made by the apex Court and by this Court in so many cases. 5. This Court in batch of cases lead case of which was CWP No. 1912 of 2016 titled Bego Devi versus State of HP and others decided on 26th October, 2016, has held that since the petitioners have accepted their termination orders without any murmur and whisper, thus the dispute does not survive after 8-10 years. In the case on hand, the petitioner has come out of slumber after 22 years. Thus, in the present case the dispute was not surviving between the employer and the employee at the time when the petitioner approached for making the reference. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Government has made references in the cases of similarly situated persons without any objection regarding the delay and has also relied on the judgment delivered by the apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9714 of 2016 titled Basant Singh versus State of H.P. and others alongwith connected matters. The argument though attractive is devoid of any force for the following reasons. 7. The petitioner has made application for making reference after a considerable delay, after noticing the judgment made by the apex Court read with the judgments made by this Court, as discussed in para 4 supra. It appears that the petitioner was fencer, as discussed hereinabove and made an attempt for making reference. The State has made the references perhaps in terms of the judgments made by this Court. The latest judgment was not in place at that time. Viewed thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is similarly situated person. 8. Accordingly, the judgment made by this Court in CWP No. 1912 of 2016, referred to supra shall govern this writ petition and shall also form part of this judgment. 9. Having said so, the writ petition is dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any, as indicated hereinabove.