JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for quashing order dated 11.05.2005, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in Ref. Case No. 2 of 2004, whereby, the said reference has been held as not maintainable since the reference has been raised after 11 years. 3. As per factual matrix, on 16.03.1984, the petitioner was appointed as clerk-cum-typist under respondent No. 2 and on 01.10.1984, his service was confirmed by respondent No. 2. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 1991, he became the member of Trade Union and started taking active participation in the activities of the said Union. As the petitioner was taking active participation in the activities of the Union, he became the victim of the Management and on 17.02.1992, he was issued with charge-sheet on vague and concocted allegations. Upon receipt of the said charge-sheet, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 24.02.1992, denying all the allegations levelled against him. However, the Management did not accept the reply of the petitioner and initiated enquiry against him by constituting an Enquiry Committee, in which the petitioner has also participated and submitted his reply. The Enquiry Officer, upon perusal of the documents brought on record and after hearing the parties, submitted his report. Thereafter, the 2nd show cause notice dated 29.07.1992 along with copy of enquiry report was served upon the petitioner. Upon receipt of the said show-cause, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 04.08.1992, however, the same was again not considered by the Management and the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondent-Management vide order dated 30.09.1992. Aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was also rejected by the respondent-Management on 21.10.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner raised industrial dispute before the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Ranchi and requested to start conciliation proceeding, however, the same was not started and hence, the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1579 of 1996 (R), which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court directing the petitioner to invoke the remedy available under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, after much persuasion, the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Ranchi and requested to start conciliation proceeding, however, the same was not started and hence, the petitioner preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1579 of 1996 (R), which was disposed of by the Hon’ble High Court directing the petitioner to invoke the remedy available under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, after much persuasion, the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Ranchi issued notice in which the Management filed its show-cause but due to adamant attitude of the Management, the conciliation proceeding failed and the matter was referred to the appropriate government for reference. Consequently, vide notification dated 27.03.2004, the Govt. of Jharkhand referred the dispute of the petitioner for adjudication, which was registered as Ref. Case No. 2 of 2004. Upon notice, the Management filed an application raising preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the reference on the point of limitation as the said reference has been registered after 11 years. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of the records, vide its order dated 11.05.2005 dismissed the said reference holding therein that: “In view of discussions made above and in view of decision of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court reported in 2005(1) JLJR 386 I hold that the present reference made after 11 years with regard to the dispute was stale and dispute itself is non-existence and the reference is not maintainable.” Assailing the order dated 11.05.2005, passed in Ref. Case No. 2 of 2004, the petitioner-workman has knocked door of this Court. 4. Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the order dated 11.05.2005, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, is without jurisdiction and against the settled principle of law. It has been further argued that learned Court below has wrongly heard the petition dated 25.02.2005 of respondent No. 2 as a preliminary issue and decided the same. Learned counsel further argued that learned Court below without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence in support of the contention made in the written statement, held that “in the instant case there is nothing on record to show that the concerned workman, Sri Puran Chandra Saha was pursuing his case before the government”. Learned counsel further argued that learned Court below without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence in support of the contention made in the written statement, held that “in the instant case there is nothing on record to show that the concerned workman, Sri Puran Chandra Saha was pursuing his case before the government”. Learned counsel further argued that learned Court below has misdirected and wrongly relied upon the judgment reported in 2005 (1) JLJR 386 , which is not applicable in the instant case, since the instant reference is not similar to the case which was before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. Learned counsel further argued that the learned Labour Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and without adjudicating the dispute, held that reference is not maintainable. It is well settled law that Labour Court is the creatures of statute and it gets the jurisdiction on the basis of reference and it cannot go into the validity of the reference. Learned counsel further argues that there is no laches on the part of the workman since he is pursuing the case soon after his termination and it is the respondent-authorities who have made delay in deciding the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the petitioner has now crossed the age of superannuation, so he is only praying for grant of monetary compensation. 5. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel places heavy reliance on the following judgments: (I) Satti Paradesi Samadhi & Philliar Temple Vs. M. Sankuntala (D) TR. LRS. and Ors. [(2014) SCC 746]; (II) Hareendran & Ors. Vs. Sukumaran & Ors. [ AIR 2017 SC 2697 ]; (III) Chandrama Singh @ Nathuni Singh Vs. Registrar, Civil Court & Anr. [ AIR 2012 Pat. 175 ]; (IV) Raghubir Singh Vs. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Hissar [2014 AIR SCW 5515]; & (V) U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Udal Narain Pandey [ AIR 2006 SC 586 ]. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Management submits that on the allegation of theft of bearings, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 17.02.1992 and thereafter, the petitioner filed his explanation which was not found satisfactory and as such, enquiry was conducted against him. Vs. Udal Narain Pandey [ AIR 2006 SC 586 ]. 6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Management submits that on the allegation of theft of bearings, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 17.02.1992 and thereafter, the petitioner filed his explanation which was not found satisfactory and as such, enquiry was conducted against him. The petitioner was given full opportunity to defend his case and thereafter, on the basis of enquiry report, the respondent-Management terminated the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 30.09.1992. Thereafter, after lapse of almost four years, the petitioner filed writ petition which was disposed of on 20.03.1997 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned authority for reference of the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner again remain idle in approaching the concerned authority and thereafter, instead of doing so, he again filed writ petition being CWJC No. 3736 of 1998 (R), which was dismissed for default on 17.04.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner filed M.J.C. No. 396 of 2000 (R) for restoration of CWJC No. 3736 of 1998 (R)¸which was allowed by order dated 19.05.2000. However, the said i.e. CWJC No. 3736 of 1998 (R) was again dismissed for non-prosecution on 03.09.2001. Thereafter, another restoration application was filed by the petitioner being CMP No. 536 of 2001, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Court vide order dated 04.12.2002 with an observation that the petitioner had no interest in the case. The Hon’ble Court while dismissing the case did not give any liberty to the petitioner to pursue any alternative remedy as was granted earlier by this Court vide order dated 20.03.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Labour Department, Ranchi for referring his case to the Labour Court and finally his case was referred to the Labour Court by notification dated 27.03.2004. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties and upon perusal of records, passed order dated 11.05.2005 holding the case of the petitioner as not maintainable for the reason that the dispute had become stale and non-existence after lapse of more than 11 years. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid reasons it is apparent that petitioner is not vigilant of his right and hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Labour Court holding that the reference is not maintainable since it is a belated one. Learned counsel accordingly submits that for the aforesaid reasons it is apparent that petitioner is not vigilant of his right and hence, there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Labour Court holding that the reference is not maintainable since it is a belated one. Learned counsel further argues that dispute was not in existence and has already become a stale claim. 8. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State adopts the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-Management and submits that the petitioner has no case and the writ petition should be dismissed in limine. 9. Be that as it may, after hearing counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the documents brought on record as well as the impugned order, it is not in quarrel that petitioner was not vigilant towards his right. He slept for years before knocking the door of this Court. Even earlier, petitioner filed writ petitions but never pursued the same and on two occasions, the writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner was lethargic in his approach which cannot be ruled-out. 10. It is well settled law that an administrative order which does not take into consideration statutory requirements or travels outside its jurisdiction is certainly subject to judicial review and the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can exercise its power to consider the question of the very jurisdiction of the Labour Court. Learned Labour Court has thoroughly considered the facts and provisions of law and decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and has come to the finding that the reference having been made after 11 years, the same is stale and the dispute itself does not exist. It has been thus rightly decided that the reference was not maintainable. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 , has held that, reference of the said dispute at this belated stage is bad both on the grounds of delay as well as on non-existence of an industrial dispute. Further, in the case of Prabhakar Vs. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankutty & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 455 , has held that, reference of the said dispute at this belated stage is bad both on the grounds of delay as well as on non-existence of an industrial dispute. Further, in the case of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department & Anr., reported in (2015) 15 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, appropriate government must ensure that dispute is still existing or is a live dispute and has not become stale claim. Whether dispute is live or stale claim depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule for making order of reference can be laid down. 11. Therefore, from perusal of the aforesaid judgments, it is apparent that rightly the claim of the petitioner has been denied on ground of unexplained delay and laches. Even the present writ application is barred by principle of res-judicata and estoppels as for the same relief, earlier the petitioner has approached this Court twice and the writ petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution and no liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the same. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no application in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court is in full agreement with the observations of the learned Labour Court and finds that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order/award. 12. No interference is warranted in the instant writ application and the same is hereby dismissed.