JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. This petition is pending since 2007. Today, when the petition is called out and taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the petitioner is not present. Ms. Nidhi Trivedi, learned advocate for Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent company is present. Having regard to the fact that the petition is pending since more than 10 years, this Court deems it proper to decide the petition on merits, though learned advocate for the petitioner is not present to conduct the petition on merits. For this purpose, this Court has taken into account the facts stated and contentions raised in the petition, the discussion by the learned Labour Court and the material available on record. 2. So far as the factual background is concerned, the petitioner has stated, inter alia, that:- "3.1 That, the present petitioner was working as a Head Mistry cum Supervisor since 01.09.1982. The present petitioner was also working overtime in opponent company. Beginning of this job the present petitioner was getting salary of Rs. 1500/- per month and Rs. 1000/- commission on preparation and selling of one machine by the petitioner. After some months the opponent company had given fix salary of Rs. 3500/- p.m. and another benefits regarding the Labour Laws and rules of overtime. 3.2 It is respectfully submitted that the respondent company without following any procedure whatsoever under the Industrial Disputes Act and without any justifiable reason, terminated the services of the present petitioner workman in the year 1990. Therefore, the present petitioner approached the Labour Commissioner vide complaint dated 10.03.1997. That, the respondent company did not appear before the Labour Commissioner for their defence and therefore, by order dated 10.10.1997 above complaint referred to the learned Labour Court as a reference to decide "whether the workman is entitled for reinstatement on his post with full back wages or not? 3.3 The petitioner respectfully submits that in this reference before the learned Labour Court, the present petitioner-workman submitted their statement of claim vide Exh. 7 and stated facts of the case regarding the appointment, salary and termination of the workman. 3.4 It is respectfully submitted that after service of the notice to the respondent company they appeared and filed their reply dated 21.11.2002 vide Exh. 7 and stated facts of the case regarding the appointment, salary and termination of the workman. 3.4 It is respectfully submitted that after service of the notice to the respondent company they appeared and filed their reply dated 21.11.2002 vide Exh. 10 and denied all the averments made in the statement of claim and stated that date of the termination in the complaint dated 10.03.1997 before Labour Commissioner and statement of claim in Reference (LCA) No. 1297/1997 are different and therefore, workman is not entitled for reinstatement with full back wages. They also stated in their reply that the reasons are also different and therefore workman is not entitled for reinstatement." 2.1 It has emerged that the petitioner herein raised industrial dispute with the allegation that the opponent company illegally terminated his service and therefore, the company should reinstate him with all benefits. Appropriate Government referred the dispute for adjudication to learned Labour Court at Ahmedabad. The dispute came to be registered as Reference (LCA) No. 1297 of 1997. 2.2 In the statement of claim, the claimant alleged that he was working with the opponent company since 8 years as Head Mistry-cum-Supervisor and that his past service record was clean and blotless and he had worked diligently and regularly. He also alleged that his salary was Rs. 1,500/- per month, however, it was agreed that on production and sale of one unit/machine, he will be paid Rs. 1,000/- towards commission. He also alleged that the opponent company illegally terminated his service on 27.7.1990 by oral order. The claimant further alleged that his service was terminated without following procedure prescribed by law and in breach of principles of natural justice. With such allegations, the claimant demanded that he should be reinstated in service with full backwages and other benefits. 2.3 The opponent opposed the reference and filed its written statement wherein the opponent company denied the allegations by the claimant. The opponent company denied that the claimant was working with the company since last 8 years and/or that he was engaged as Head Mistri-cum-Supervisor. The company also denied the allegation with regard to alleged agreement to pay commission or that instead of paying commission as per the agreement, the company paid only Rs. 3,500/- to the claimant. The opponent company denied that the claimant was working with the company since last 8 years and/or that he was engaged as Head Mistri-cum-Supervisor. The company also denied the allegation with regard to alleged agreement to pay commission or that instead of paying commission as per the agreement, the company paid only Rs. 3,500/- to the claimant. Besides the denial of the allegations made by the claimant in his statement of claim, the company also contended that the reference should not be entertained since the claimant had raised dispute after 7 years and that he had mentioned different dates in his complaint before the Labour Commissioner and in the statement of claim, so far as the allegation of termination from service is concerned. The opponent company also stated, inter alia, that the claimant worked with the company as labourer until August 1989 and thereafter the claimant never worked with the petitioner company. The company also contended that after August 1989, the claimant never reported for work and that the claimant's allegation that his service was terminated on 1.7.1990 and/or on 22.7.1990 are not correct. With such details, the company submitted that the reference may be rejected. 3. So far as present proceedings are concerned, the opponent company has filed an affidavit to oppose present petition and the company has averred and stated that:- "3.2 It is submitted that the Labour Court has passed the award, which is absolutely just, proper and correct. There is no error of law much less error of fact committed by the Labour Court. The Labour Court has recorded findings of fact. The findings of fact of the Labour Court are based on the evidence on record before it. It is submitted that even if other view is possible in the matter, this Hon'ble Court may not interfere with the award of the Labour Court. It is submitted that the petitioner has submitted before this Hon'ble Court that he is more than 72 years of age. Thus, even as per the case of the petitioner he had reached superannuation age in the year 1993. It is submitted that as per the case of the petitioner, he raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 10.03.1997. Thus, his complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was after the date he reached superannuation age. Thus, even as per the case of the petitioner he had reached superannuation age in the year 1993. It is submitted that as per the case of the petitioner, he raised industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour on 10.03.1997. Thus, his complaint before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour was after the date he reached superannuation age. In this facts and circumstances, in fact the complaint of the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour itself was not maintainable in eye of law. It is submitted that as per the case of the petitioner, he was terminated with effect from 01.07.1990. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to substantiate his case. The date of termination presented by the petitioner was altogether different in statement of claim. He stated in his statement of claim that he was terminated with effect from 22.07.1990. Even the petitioner had filed Recovery Application before the Labour Court. In Recovery Application, he presented his date of termination as 01.07.1989. Thus, all the while the petitioner has presented different dates of termination. The petitioner has thus, not established his case before the Labour Court. It is submitted that as a well settled law, the Labour Court cannot travel beyond the terms of reference. The reference was made on the basis of termination dated 01.07.1990. Before the Labour Court in statement of claim as well as in his evidence, the petitioner stated that he was terminated on 22.07.1990. Thus, the reference made on the basis of termination dated 01.07.1990, the Labour Court was not empowered to examine legality and validity of so-called termination dated 22.07.1990. It is submitted that in support of our submission, we had produced three judgments before the Labour Court. The judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8376 of 1994 by this Hon'ble Court is directly supporting our case. It is submitted that in view of the said fact, the Labour Court has rightly rejected the reference of the petitioner. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner has not proved his termination dated 01.07.1990. 3.3 The petitioner has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove his case of termination dated 01.07.1990. Even in his oral evidence also, he has not supported his case of termination dated 01.07.1990. He has stated that his termination is of 22.07.1990. The Labour Court has held that the petitioner has not proved his termination dated 01.07.1990. 3.3 The petitioner has not adduced any documentary evidence to prove his case of termination dated 01.07.1990. Even in his oral evidence also, he has not supported his case of termination dated 01.07.1990. He has stated that his termination is of 22.07.1990. It is submitted that even the reason for termination was also not established by the petitioner and in his evidence, he has made contradictory statements. The Labour Court has appreciated the evidence of the petitioner and has passed the award. Even in written statement the respondent offered work to the petitioner but the petitioner himself has stated that since he is aged about 65 years, he is not prepared to work and he is not prepare to join duty. Thus, even as per the case of the petitioner, he is not ready and willing to join duty and, therefore, the petitioner has not required to be granted any relief. 3.4 It is submitted that in fact, the petitioner was never terminated by the respondent and the case of the petitioner was absolutely false. After seven years of his termination so as to extort money, the petitioner approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court has appreciated all the facts and rejected the reference. The Labour Court has considered the conduct of the petitioner and has not granted any relief to him. Even the petitioner has not proved his case of so called termination. The Labour Court has given cogent reason for not granting any relief to the petitioner. Even the petitioner himself has stated that after May, 1989 he has not made efforts to get job elsewhere. The Labour Court has thus; found that there is no breach of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner has not established his case before the Labour Court. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, petition has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. It is also worthwhile to mention here that after seven years the petitioner filed complaint before the Conciliation Officer and after five years from the date of reference, he filed statement of claim. In fact, on the ground of unexplained delay, the petitioner's reference ought to have been rejected by the Labour Court. It is also worthwhile to mention here that after seven years the petitioner filed complaint before the Conciliation Officer and after five years from the date of reference, he filed statement of claim. In fact, on the ground of unexplained delay, the petitioner's reference ought to have been rejected by the Labour Court. It is submitted that in any case, from the conduct of the petitioner it is very clear that he was not interested in work but so as to extort money, dispute was raised by the petitioner." 4. So as to oppose the award, the claimant i.e. the petitioner has contended that:- "4. That, the learned Labour Court ought to have considered the facts that reference was made in respect of whether the workman has reinstatement on his services with full backwages or not? It is respectfully submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly held that the learned Labour Commissioner referred this case as reference to this Labour Court to decide the termination of services w.e.f. 01.07.1990 and if yes than workman is entitled for reinstatement for same services on full backwages or not? It is respectfully submitted that the Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go beyond the terms of reference and to inquire into the question, which is not involved in the reference. It is specifically stated by the learned Labour Court in the title of the Judgement in the head of Schedule that "Whether the workman Jayantilal Ambalal Panchal is entitled for reinstatement of his service with full backwages or not?" It is respectfully submitted that learned Labour Commissioner referred case of the present petitioner as reference to the learned Labour Court for the very same purpose than learned Labour Court wrongly decided on another issue that is not concern with the above reference. 5. That, the petitioner submitted that the learned Labour Court has erred and holding that the date of termination of the workman is different in the complaint dated 10.03.1997 before Labour commissioner and in the statement of claim in Reference (L.C.A.) No. 1297/1997 before the learned Labour Court. It is also noted by the learned Labour Court in the Cross-examination of the workman-present petitioner that complaint dated 10.03.1997, which was not written by him. It is also noted by the learned Labour Court in the Cross-examination of the workman-present petitioner that complaint dated 10.03.1997, which was not written by him. It is crystal clear that the complaint was not written by the workman that could be done some typographical mistake in date of termination of the workman. It is also evident on record that one Mr. Narayanbhai Patel who examine vide Exh. 8 in which he stated that the present petitioner workman was working till August - 1989 in the company, but he has not any evidence to prove that the petitioner workman had worked till 1990. Therefore, the learned Labour Court wrongly decided and rejected the same reference. 6. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly decided that case of the workman was referred to the learned Labour Court to decided that whether workman is terminated on 01.07.1990 or not ? If yes than workman is entitled for reinstatement on his services with full back wages ? 7. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Labour Court has wrongly considered the facts of the termination services of the workman that the different facts/reasons were shown in complaint dated 10.03.1997 and statement of claim before learned Labour Court as well as cross examination of the workman and other witnesses. It is respectfully submitted that so far as different date of termination is concern, it is specifically clear in the cross-examination that the complaint dated 10.03.1997 which was not written by the present petitioner workman therefore, there was committed typographically mistake. Than the different statements are concern looking to the record like cross examination of the workman as well as witness, the learned Labour Court took different interpretation of the statements of the record. It is crystal clear from the statements and evidence that meaning of the every statement of the witness as well as workman is same and in favour of present petitioner workman. 8. That, the learned Labour Court erred in holding that the workman failed to avoid the opportunity offered by the company than workman is not entitled for reinstatement will full backwages. 8. That, the learned Labour Court erred in holding that the workman failed to avoid the opportunity offered by the company than workman is not entitled for reinstatement will full backwages. It is respectfully submitted that the present petitioner workman is terminated in 1990 and on complaint filed before Labour Commissioner on 10.03.1997 - after 7 years there is no one appeared by and on behalf of the company and till that point of time no offered had been given to the workman. Thereafter, in absence of the opponent company case of the workman had been referred to the learned Labour Court. Before learned Labour Court, after served notice to the opponent company they appeared and filed their reply. The opponent company stated in their reply that after 13 years, they offered workman to join the service unconditionally that is against the natural law and cardinal principal law. It is respectfully submitted that the further allegations are also made in their reply that the workman used to remain absent. The learned Labour Court ought to have appreciated that if the workman used to remain absent than there were no given notice to the workman regarding to the absent of workman in the company and no any evidence produced by same. The learned Labour Court ought to have considered these all aspect while rejecting the reference of the workman. But, without appreciating the facts and law in their true perspective and against the provision of law and against the evidence on record the learned Labour Court rejected the reference of the workman and confirmed the termination of services of present petitioner - workman. 9. That, the learned Labour Court erred in holding that the present petitioner - workman was not able to do work in the company and thereby workman is not entitled reinstatement in the company of service with full backwages. It is respectfully submitted that the learned Labour Court took wrongly interpretation of the statement of the workman in his cross-examination that workman did not try to get service after 1989. As per the meaning of the above statement is that the workman did not try to get service from anywhere but not in the present opponent company. The present petitioner - workman many time try to get service in the said company but opponent company did not take care about the request of the workman." 5. As per the meaning of the above statement is that the workman did not try to get service from anywhere but not in the present opponent company. The present petitioner - workman many time try to get service in the said company but opponent company did not take care about the request of the workman." 5. According to learned advocate for the respondent, the learned Labour Court has not committed any error in rejecting the reference and the petition does not deserve to be entertained. Learned advocate for the respondent also emphasized the objection on the ground of delay. 6. I have considered the material available on record and the contentions raised by the petitioner in the memo of the petition and the discussion in the impugned award. 7. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of certain discrepancies in the factual aspects stated by the claimant. 7.1 On this count it has emerged from the record before the conciliation officer that the claimant alleged and contended that his service was terminated w.e.f. 1.7.1990 whereas in the statement of claim filed before the learned Labour Court, the claimant alleged that his service was terminated on 22.7.1990 by oral order. Besides the said discrepancy in the claimant's allegation, the company contended that the claimant had not reported for duty after August, 1989. 8. From the material on record, it has emerged that the claimant did not clarify or explain the discrepancy between the case put up by him before the conciliation officer and the case set up by him in his statement of claim. Even if the said discrepancy and anomaly are overlooked and ignored on the ground that the said discrepancy is minor and trivial, the fact that the claimant raised dispute after almost 7 years cannot be ignored. Even if the allegations by the claimant are accepted, then also, the fact would stare in claimant's face that his service came to be terminated in July 1990 (according to his own allegation) whereas he raised dispute in 1997, i.e. after almost 7 years. 9. On this count, it is also relevant to note that appropriate government passed order of reference on 10.10.1997 whereas the claimant seems to have filed his statement of claim on record of learned Labour Court on or after 29.8.2002 i.e. about 5 years after the order of reference was made. 9. On this count, it is also relevant to note that appropriate government passed order of reference on 10.10.1997 whereas the claimant seems to have filed his statement of claim on record of learned Labour Court on or after 29.8.2002 i.e. about 5 years after the order of reference was made. 9.1 In this way, the dispute was raised after 7 years and the first step or actual action by the claimant for prosecuting the reference i.e. filing statement of claim was taken by the claimant after further 5 years. Thus, almost 12 years were consumed by the claimant without any just cause. 10. Another relevant aspect which has emerged from the award is that the learned Labour Court has recorded specific finding in the award that at the relevant time, i.e. when the proceedings commenced, the age of the claimant was 68 years meaning thereby the claimant raised the dispute and the dispute was prosecuted by him after he crossed age of superannuation. Thus, even if the claimant's allegation to the effect that his service was terminated in 1990 is taken at its face value then also the fact remains that at the time when the claimant raised the dispute, his age was 68 years and that at the time when his service was allegedly terminated, he had already attained/crossed age of superannuation. 11. Besides above mentioned facts and details, it has also emerged from the record of learned Labour Court that the learned Labour Court has recorded specific findings of fact on the basis of the deposition of the claimant and the documents available on record. The learned Labour Court has recorded that the claimant could not place any material or document or evidence on record to establish that he was employee of the opponent company and/or that he worked with the company until 1990. The learned Labour Court also recorded in the award, on the basis of the specific statement and admission by the claimant that it was the claimant who refused to report for duty. The learned Labour Court also recorded in the award, on the basis of the specific statement and admission by the claimant that it was the claimant who refused to report for duty. The learned Labour Court has recorded in the award that in his deposition (examination in chief of the claimant) the claimant claimed that if he is allowed to resume duty, he would report for duty, however, the claimant himself, during cross examination, stated that since he has already attained age of 65 years and since his health is not in good condition, he is not ready to and he would not be able to report for duty. After considering material available on record, the learned Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the claimant failed to establish that the company had terminated his service and/or that the company had committed breach of Section 25F or Section 25G. Having reached such finding of fact, the learned Labour Court rejected the reference. 11.1 When the award impugned in present petition is examined in light of above mentioned details and facts, it becomes clear that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court and the final decision of the learned Labour Court cannot be faulted and they do not suffer from any infirmity, much less error of law or jurisdiction. From the manner in which the proceedings came to be instituted by the claimant and prosecuted by him and also from the fact that after filing present petition, the claimant has not cared to take any steps to prosecute the petition on merits and even at the time when the petition is taken up for hearing, learned advocate for the claimant is not present, give an impression that the proceedings are abandoned and it becomes clear that the learned Labour Court did not commit any error in rejecting the reference. When breach of any statutory provision or principles of natural justice are not established and when the claimant also failed to establish that the company terminated his service and that the termination was illegal, obviously, the learned Labour Court would not grant any relief. In this background and in light of the material available on record, the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference. In this background and in light of the material available on record, the learned Labour Court dismissed the reference. When the contentions raised in the petition are examined, it comes out that the claimant has failed to make out any case against the conclusions and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court. 11.2 In the result, the petition fails and deserves to be rejected. 12. Therefore, following order is passed:- "[a] The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to convince this Court that the findings recorded by the learned Labour Court are perverse and the award impugned in present petition suffers from error of law or jurisdiction or even fact, and deserves to be interfered. Therefore, the petition deserves to be rejected and is, accordingly, rejected. Rule is discharged." Petition Dismissed.