JUDGMENT Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following main reliefs:- "I. To direct the respondent No.2, appoint the petitioner as Chowkidar over and above the juniors stated above. II. To quash and set aside the annexure P-3 dated 25-4- 2011 and direct the respondent no. 2 to send the reference to the Labour Court for decision in accordance with law." 2. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of respondent No.2 i.e. Labour Commissioner, Department of Labour & Employment, HP, Shimla, whereby he declined to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner to the Labour Court for adjudication, approached this Court seeking reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above. Petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar, purely on contract basis on the fixed salary of Rs. 2600 per month by respondent No.3 on 15.3.2001 initially for 180 days. He continued to work till 10.9.2001. It also emerges from the record that contract was extended upto 31.1.2002 and petitioner worked as such upto 19.1.2002, where after, petitioner was transferred as Security Guard in BSNL Telephone Exchange, Ghumarwin. Thereafter, petitioner worked upto 31.8.2003, on which date, his services were terminated and thereafter, he was not allowed to join work. Petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid termination, filed claim before Labour Officer, Bilaspur. However, Labour Commissioner, vide communication dated 25.4.2011, (Annexure P-4), declined to refer the dispute to the Labour Court on the ground of inordinate delay. It would be appropriate to reproduce contents of annexure P-4 as under: "This is with reference to your demand notice and report under Section 12 (4) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 received from the Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, H.P. in respect of your dispute with the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, H.P. Ex-Serviceman Corporation, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P. After careful examination of the above report and reply filed by the employer, it is found that you had worked up to 31-08-2003. You have raised the present demand notice dated 22-03-2010 i.e. after more than 6 years meaning thereby that there was no dispute w.e.f. 31-08-2003 to 22-03-2010. If there was no dispute for more than 6 years then there can not be any dispute after this period and there is no fresh cause of action which was not there in the present case. If there was no dispute for more than 6 years then there can not be any dispute after this period and there is no fresh cause of action which was not there in the present case. Therefore, in view of the Judgment of Division Bench of Hon''ble High Court of H.P. in C.W.P. No. 398/2001- titled M.C. Paonta Sahib v. State of H.P. Nisar Ali etc ., your dispute had faded away and not in existence and now there is no justification of making reference to Ld. Labour Court. Therefore, your demand notice is prima-facie, vexatious and frivolous. Accordingly, you are informed as per provisions of Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 that your dispute under reference in view of above mentioned reasons is not being referred to the Ld. Labour Court of Himachal Pradesh for legal adjudication." 3. In the aforesaid background, petitioner approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and also gone through the record. 5. Perusal of impugned order dated 12.4.2011 (Annexure P-4) clearly suggests that the petitioner worked with respondent No.3 upto 31.8.2003 and thereafter remained out of job and raised demand notice dated 22.3.2010 after a delay of more than six years. Labour Commissioner, while passing impugned order dated 12.4.2011, ha specifically concluded that since no demand was raised for more than six years, there was no dispute with effect from 31.8.2003 to 22.3.210 and as such there is no justification for referring dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication. Bare perusal of present petition, whereby impugned order has been challenged, nowhere stipulated reasons, if any, for delay on the part of the petitioner in raising demand after a considerable delay of more than six years. There is no whisper, if any, in the averments contained in the present petition, suggestive of the fact that for the reasons, which were completely beyond the control of the present petitioner, petitioner was unable to raise demand within reasonable period. There is no whisper, if any, in the averments contained in the present petition, suggestive of the fact that for the reasons, which were completely beyond the control of the present petitioner, petitioner was unable to raise demand within reasonable period. Similarly, perusal of impugned order, as reproduced herein above, also suggests that no explanations worth the name was rendered in the demand notice raised by the petitioner qua the inordinate delay in raising dispute and as such this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order having been passed by Labour Commissioner, which is certainly in conformity with the recent law laid down by Apex Court in Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department and another reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984 , whereby Apex Court has held that if a dispute survives, reference is to be made and if dispute does not survive, reference is not to be made. In the case in hand, it stands duly proved on record that there was no dispute, if any, with effect from 31.8.2003 to 22.3.2010, because, admittedly, during this period, no steps were taken by the petitioner to raise demand for referring the matter to Labour Court for adjudication. It would be appropriate to reproduce paras 42 and 43 of the said judgment as under: "42. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference Under Section 10(1) of the Act, yet it is for the ''appropriate Government'' to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words ''at any time'' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers'' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry. 43. 43. On the application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that High Court correctly decided the issue holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. after fourteen years of termination without any justifiable explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had not jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute." 6. In the aforesaid judgment having been passed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, it has been specifically held that stale claim should not be encouraged/ allowed, unless there is specific explanation for delay. In the instant case, as has been observed above, there is no explanation worth the name for delay, if any, caused in raising demand notice by the petitioner, as such, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 12.4.2011 passed by Labour Commissioner. Since no demand was raised by the petitioner immediately after his termination on 31.8.2003, and even thereafter for more than six years, it can be safely presumed that the petitioner virtually accepted his termination order, thus, he is caught by delay, act and conduct, acquiescence and waiver. Apart from above, Division Bench of this Court, while taking cognizance of aforesaid law passed by Apex Court also decided CWP No. 1912/2016 titled Bego Devi v. State of HP and others on 26.10.2016 and held that a person, who does not seek relief within time, his case/petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches, otherwise it would amount to gross misuse of jurisdiction and disturbing settled position. 7. Consequently, in view of aforesaid discussion as well as law referred to herein above, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Labour Commissioner. 8. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.