JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.1 waives service of rule in most of the petitions. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the present group of petitions are taken up for final disposal today itself. 2. By way of the present group of petitions, the petitioner – Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has challenged an order passed below application Exh.6 in different References by which the applications submitted by the petitioner Corporation contending that the References were filed after more than 16 years and hence, the same may be rejected at the threshold in view of provisions of Section 2(a)(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, came to be rejected. 3. Pursuant to the notices issued by this Court, the private respondents are represented by learned advocate Mr. U.T. Mishra and they have filed affidavit-in-reply and opposed grant of any relief in favour of the petitioner. 4. The brief facts arises from the record are as under :- 5. That the private respondents herein were appointed by the Corporation as daily wagers purely on temporary, adhoc and daily wage basis depending upon the availability of work. Their services came to be terminated in the year 1998. As per the case of the petitioner Corporation, after 16 years, the workmen raised industrial dispute in the year 2014 with regard to their alleged illegal termination. The dispute could not be settled and, therefore, the matter was referred to the Labour Court, Ahmedabad. 6. The petitioner submitted applications before the Labour Court raising a preliminary issue of limitation and delay in filing of such reference and requested the Labour Court to frame an issue with regard to limitation as a preliminary issue and decide the references accordingly. The said applications came to be rejected by the Labour Court by the impugned orders. Hence, these petitions. 7. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner Corporation would submit that there is huge delay in preferring the References and, therefore, the Labour Court ought to have allowed the applications of the petitioner and ought to have decided the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue before entering into the merits of the cases. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned orders are required o be quashed and set aside on the said ground alone. 8. On the other hand, Mr. He, therefore, would submit that the impugned orders are required o be quashed and set aside on the said ground alone. 8. On the other hand, Mr. U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing for the respondents – workmen has opposed these petitions and supported the reasons assigned by the Labour Court while passing the impugned orders. He would further submit it was the case of the respondents – workmen that apart from delay, several other issues i.e. breach of provisions of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are also required to be decided since juniors as well as new employees were continued and appointed in service subsequent to the retrenchment of the workmen. He, therefore, would submit that the present petitions may be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the impugned order passed by the Labour Court as well as examined the reasons assigned in the impugned order. The industrial dispute was raised by the workmen with regard to their alleged illegal termination and alleged breach of Sections 25-F, 25-G and 25-H of the I.D. Act. Further, the References are pending adjudication and all the points can be considered while deciding the References finally. Therefore, in my opinion, the Labour Court ought not to have rejected the applications filed by the petitioner Corporation. However, the Labour Court ought to have considered the said objection regarding limitation at the time of final disposal of the references. 10. In the result, the present group of petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned orders passed below applications Exh.6 in different References by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad are hereby quashed and set aside. However, the observations made in the impugned order are not to be accepted while deciding the References finally since the issue of limitation is required to be adjudicated after examining the witnesses by both the parties. 11. It is hereby made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case put forward by either party and hence, the Labour Court shall decide the References in question in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ and/or certified copy of this order, whichever is earlier. Rule is made absolute to the above extent. Direct service is permitted.