JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. It is jointly submitted by learned counsel for the parties that CWP No. 5741 of 2014 & CWP No. 5855 of 2014, involve common questions of law and facts and, therefore, are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. Aggrieved against the awards passed on 07.08.2013 in CWP No. 5741 of 2014 and on 06.09.2013 in CWP No. 5855 of 2014 by learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum- Industrial, Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P., instant writ petitions have been preferred by the State of H.P. 3. For convenience, facts of CWP No. 5741 of 2014 are being referred hereinafter:- 3(i) Following reference was made by the appropriate Government for adjudication to learned Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P.:- ?Whether termination of the services of Sh. Amar Singh s/o Sh. Lachhiya Ram, r/o Village-Nanahar, P.O. Kandwari, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. by the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Baijnath, Distt. Kangra, from time to time during 2001 to 2007, without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is legal and justified? If not, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above worker is entitled to from the above employer?? 3(ii) After considering the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence adduced by them, learned Tribunal below, allowed the claim petition with following directions:- ?28. As a sequel to my findings on the various issues, the instant claim petition succeeds in part and the same is partly allowed. The breaks given by the respondent to the petitioner up-to 31.08.2007 being artificial/fictional are held to be wrong and illegal. He (petitioner) shall be entitled to the seniority and continuity in service from the date of his initial engagement except back wages. The respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization of his services as per the policies framed by the State Government from time to time. It is made clear that if the services of any person junior to the petitioner have already been regularized, he (petitioner) shall be entitled to the regularization from the date/month of the regularization of the services of his junior(s). Parties to bear their own costs.? 4(i) It is against the above relief granted by learned Tribunal below that the State has preferred the instant writ petition. I have heard Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner(s) and Mr. Parties to bear their own costs.? 4(i) It is against the above relief granted by learned Tribunal below that the State has preferred the instant writ petition. I have heard Mr. Anil Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner(s) and Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent(s) and with their assistance gone through the record. Relief regarding regularization: 4(ii). A bare perusal of the reference vis-a-vis the above extracted relief granted by learned Tribunal, makes it apparent that the latter part of the relief in respect of directing the petitioner/State to consider the case of the claimant for regularization of his services; regularization from the date on which his alleged juniors were regularized, is beyond the terms of reference. In (2015) 4 SCC 71 , titled Oshiar Prasad and others vs. Employers in Relation to Management of Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Dhanbad, Jharkhand, Hon'ble Apex Court, held as under:- ?22. It is thus clear that the appropriate Government is empowered to make a reference under Section 10 of the Act only when ?industrial dispute exists? or ?is apprehended between the parties?. Similarly, it is also clear that the Tribunal while answering the reference has to confine its inquiry to the question(s) referred and has no jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or/and the terms of the reference while answering the reference. A fortiori, no inquiry can be made on those questions, which are not specifically referred to the Tribunal while answering the reference.? In view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, the relief granted to the claimant/workman in respect of his regularization, being beyond the terms of reference, cannot be allowed to sustain. Accordingly, the directions contained in the impugned award in respect of regularization of the claimant are quashed and set aside. However, by way of abundant caution, it is made clear that in case the workman has been otherwise regularized by the State in accordance with law as per policy governing the field, then the same benefit shall not be withdrawn from him. However, by way of abundant caution, it is made clear that in case the workman has been otherwise regularized by the State in accordance with law as per policy governing the field, then the same benefit shall not be withdrawn from him. Relief regarding seniority and continuity in service from the date of initial engagement:- 4(iii) Learned Additional Advocate General has contended that:- the claimant could not be held entitled to seniority and continuity in service from the date of his initial engagement as he was engaged as per requirement of work and availability of funds; no such relief was claimed by the workman between the disputed period of years 2001 to 2007; the claimant had accepted the wages granted to him without any demur or protest; therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise a stale claim for grant of seniority and continuity of service w.e.f. 2001 to 2007. 4(iii) (a) The record shows that petitioner-State, in its reply to the claim petition, had not taken any such plea that the engagement of the workman was as per requirement of work and availability of funds. The only contention put-forth in reply was that claimant was an intermittent worker and used to report for duty as per his own convenience. The stand taken in the reply is falsified from the bare perusal of the muster roll Ext. RW-1/A, which reveals that the claimant has been marked present at intervals during the period 2001 to 2007. From 2008 onwards, claimant has been marked present continuously. Learned counsel for the respondent-workman submitted that after 2007, State had issued directions against giving fictional breaks. It cannot be believed that the claimant would remain absent for a month or two and thereafter will be allowed to work for the next month without issuance of any show cause notice in this regard to him. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no escape from conclusion that fictional breaks were given to the claimant by the authorities and that his services had been continuously engaged by the petitioner/State during 2001 to 2007. I, therefore, find no infirmity with the directions issued by learned Tribunal granting seniority and continuity in service to the claimant from his initial date of engagement. I, therefore, find no infirmity with the directions issued by learned Tribunal granting seniority and continuity in service to the claimant from his initial date of engagement. Stale claim 4(iii) (b) In respect of second contention raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that the workman had raised dispute after a period of nine years, it is to be noticed that the reference had not been challenged by the State in accordance with law. Hon'ble Apex Court in (2007) 14 SCC 291 , titled as Karan Singh vs. Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board, held as under:- “12. In National Engg. Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan it has been held vide para 24 that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition when there is an allegation that there is no industrial dispute which could be the subject-matter of reference for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10. This is because existence of the industrial dispute is a jurisdictional fact. Absence of such jurisdictional fact results in the invalidation of the reference. For example, even under the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it stood earlier, the Income Tax Officer must have reason to believe escapement of income. This ?reason to believe? is a jurisdictional fact, therefore, writ petitions were maintainable in cases where the High Court found absence of basic facts for reopening the assessment. The Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 gets its jurisdiction to decide an industrial dispute only upon a reference by the appropriate Government. The Industrial Tribunal cannot invalidate the reference on the ground of delay. If the employer says that the workman has made a stale claim then the employer must challenge the reference by way of writ petition and say that since the claim is belated, there was no industrial dispute. The Industrial Tribunal cannot strike down the reference on this ground.? In view of the above, no infirmity can be found with the learned Tribunal below in deciding the reference when the same was not challenged on point of delay by the State. Even otherwise, as is recorded in the impugned awards, issues No. 2 to 5, framed in this regard, were not pressed by the petitioner/State before the learned Tribunal. Hence, the same are not open to challenge now. No other point was urged. Even otherwise, as is recorded in the impugned awards, issues No. 2 to 5, framed in this regard, were not pressed by the petitioner/State before the learned Tribunal. Hence, the same are not open to challenge now. No other point was urged. CWP No. 5855 of 2014 4(iv) It is jointly submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that but for difference in certain dates and some of the facts pertaining to workman in this petition, the questions of law and facts involved herein are common to those involved in CWP No. 5714 of 2014.The observations made in CWP No. 5714 of 2014, therefore, will also govern CWP No. 5855 of 2014. In view of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are partly allowed. Impugned awards in both the writ petitions are modified to the extent indicated above. The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly alongwith pending applications, if any.