ORDER : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. This special appeal has been filed by the appellant workman - Laxmi Kant Mudgal against the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant workman challenging the award dated 30.5.2018 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the claim presented by the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed as forest guard with respondents w.e.f. 01.01.1983 at Kevla Dev National Park, Bharatpur and served with the respondents with utmost satisfaction till 30.06.1984. But without any reason and following the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, retrenched the services of the appellant w.e.f. 01.07.1984 by oral order. The appellant raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate Government. After failure of reconciliation proceedings, the industrial dispute referred before the learned Labour Court, Bharatpur. The learned Labour Court, after considering the material on record, rejected the claim of the appellant on 30.05.2018 for the reason that the appellant failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year. The appellant challenged the award of the Labour Court by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24671/2018 before the learned Single Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2018. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders dated 26.11.2018 and 30.05.2018 are perverse and contrary to the material available on record. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant produced on record a certificate (Annexure-4) in which it has been specifically stated that the appellant had worked for last 15 months. But the learned Labour Court ignored the certificate and stated that this certificate had not proved that the appellant had worked continuously for 15 months. The learned Single Judge also committed serious error while not taking into consideration of this aspect. The learned Single Judge as well as learned Labour Court, both have given undue weightage to minor typing mistake committed by the appellant in his statement of claim as in para No. 17 of the claim by typing mistake 5/89 and 6/89 have been typed instead of 5/84 and 6/84. The learned Single Judge as well as learned Labour Court, both have given undue weightage to minor typing mistake committed by the appellant in his statement of claim as in para No. 17 of the claim by typing mistake 5/89 and 6/89 have been typed instead of 5/84 and 6/84. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Labour Court had found the delay of raising the industrial dispute after 14 years unexplained which is contrary to the findings in para 10 of this award. The learned Labour Court recorded that the delay is not prohibitory in the Labour Law. The learned Single Judge also committed mistake in dismissing the appeal on this sole ground of delay. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the learned Single Judge is contrary to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15177/2015 along with other connected writ petitions wherein the learned Single Judge has held that on the ground of delay, the reference cannot be answered in negative. On the ground of delay, the relief can be molded. Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the matter can be remanded back to the learned Labour Tribunal to examine the matter afresh and ordered accordingly. For their arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15177/2015, Dilip Singh vs. Assistant Engineer, PWD & other connected matters, decided on 12.4.2017. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the impugned orders and the material available on record. 5. Learned Labour Tribunal in its award stated that the appellant in his oral evidence submitted that he worked from 01.01.1983 to 30.06.1984. As per certificate Ex.-4, it cannot be determined that the appellant worked regularly. The learned Labour Court in its order also stated that filing of claim after 14 years, claim becomes doubtful. It is also revealed from the award that the appellant had not produced any document regarding his work. So, the learned Labour Court rightly observed that it could not be proved that the appellant had worked 240 days regularly. Learned Single Judge also stated that unexplained delay of 14 years in filing of claim made it doubtful. It is also revealed from the award that the appellant had not produced any document regarding his work. So, the learned Labour Court rightly observed that it could not be proved that the appellant had worked 240 days regularly. Learned Single Judge also stated that unexplained delay of 14 years in filing of claim made it doubtful. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has observed that though there is no time limit prescribed in section 10 of the Act in raising the industrial dispute, but there should not be enormous delay. The Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport vs. Babulram, 2000 SCC (L&S) 1113 held that the workman ought to have explained the delay in raising the industrial dispute satisfactorily and it should not be condoned on mere pleading innocence by the workman that he is not liable for this delay unless a satisfactory explanation is given for the enormous delay. In Assistant Engineer C.A.D. Kota vs. Dhankar, AIR 2006 SC 2670 , the Supreme Court held that the labour court should not entertain claim petition raising industrial dispute having been filed with the enormous delay of eight years. The Division Bench of this Court in Gopilal vs. State of Rajasthan, 2008 (118) F.L.R. 744 has even gone to the extent of observing that if the reference is made with the delay of thirteen years, it is liable to be turned down in toto. In the present case, there is enormous delay of 14 years. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. So, the appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 6. Hence, the appeal is dismissed, in limine.