JUDGMENT : By way of the present petition, the petitioner, has challenged the award passed by the Court of learned Presiding Judge, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Shimla, H.P., in Reference No.33 of 2016, titled as Shayamanand Versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation Shimla, H.P. & another, decided on 30.06.2017, in terms whereof the reference which was made by the appropriate Government to the said Court, has been answered by the learned Tribunal by dismissing the claim of the petitioner/workman. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that the following reference was made by the appropriate Government to the learned Labour Court for adjudication: “Whether alleged termination of service of Shri Shyamamanand S/O Shri Dila Ram, R/O Village Alu Randal, P.O. Rampur, Tehsil Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P. w.e.f. 18.4.2001 by the (1) The Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Transport Corporation, H.P. Shimla. (2) Regional Manager, H.R.T.C. Rampur, District Shimla, H.P., who had worked as Motor Mechanic only for 191 days during the year, 2000 and has raised his industrial dispute after more than 12 years vide demand notice dated 25.9.2013, without complying the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, keeping in view of working period of 191 days during the year, 2000 and delay of more than 12 years in raising the industrial dispute, what amount of back wages, seniority, past service benefits and compensation the above ex-worker is entitled to form the above employer/management?” 3. The claim which was put forth by the petitioner/workman before the learned Labour Court was that he was initially engaged by the respondents/Himachal Road Transport Corporation as a Motor Mechanic (helper) on 06.06.2020, for a period of 89 days. After completion of 89 days, he was reengaged for further 89 days. This process continued upto 17.04.2001. Thereafter, his services were terminated without any notice. The information which was obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, demonstrated that the respondents had appointed many persons as Motor Mechanic on piecemeal basis after his termination. He also came to know that services of such like persons were thereafter placed on contract basis. It was in this background that the petitioner raised industrial dispute by claiming reinstatement with consequential benefits. 4. He also came to know that services of such like persons were thereafter placed on contract basis. It was in this background that the petitioner raised industrial dispute by claiming reinstatement with consequential benefits. 4. The claim of the workman/petitioner was contested by the respondents No.1 and 2 on the ground that the workman was engaged only on day to day basis on the leave vacancy of regular staff during the year 2000, w.e.f. 06.06.2000 in Motor Mechanic Trade on monthly remuneration of Rs.2000. As per respondents No.1 and 2, the workman was not engaged for 89 days and the factum of the workman/petitioner being reengaged after 89 days period again for such period was denied. It was further the contention of respondents No.1 and 2 that the workman/petitioner had left his job without giving any notice to the Department. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in interview for the post of Motor Mechanic, but could not qualify due to less mark. It was denied that either there were vacant posts with the respondent or that the workman/petitioner had completed more than 240 days in each calendar year. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned Court below framed the following issues: “1. Whether the termination of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.4.2001 by the respondents without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal and unjustified as alleged? OPP….. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what service benefits the petitioner is entitled to? OPP…. 3. Relief.” 6. On the basis of evidence led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues so framed were answered as under: “Issue No.1 : No Issue No.2 : Becomes redundant. RELIEF : Reference answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner per operative part of the award.” 7. Learned Labour Court, thus answered the reference by dismissing the claim petition, by returning the findings that scrutiny of the evidence demonstrated that the workman/petitioner had worked with the respondent as a Motor Mechanic for a period of 191 days and the workman/petitioner had raised industrial dispute after twelve years, vide demand notice dated 25.09.2013. Learned Labour Court then posed a question to itself as whether the reference was stale and highly belated? Learned Labour Court then posed a question to itself as whether the reference was stale and highly belated? Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 543, titled as Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub-Division, Kota Versus Mohan Lal; (2008) 17. Supreme Court Cases 627, titled as U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus Ram Singh and Another, it held that whereas the services of the petitioner were terminated w.e.f. 18.04.2001 and as there was nothing on record which demonstrated that after his termination, the petitioner approached the respondents for his reinstatement within reasonable time and further as burden was upon the petitioner to have had proved that dispute was raised within reasonable time, his having failed to discharge this burden, the claim being stale was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay in raising the dispute. It also held that record demonstrated that the workman was engaged on day to day basis and no evidence was led by the workman to prove that persons junior to him were retained or that fresh persons were engaged. By returning these findings, the reference was answered by dismissing the claim petition by holding that the workman had failed to demonstrate that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the workman has filed the present petition. 9. Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that rejection of the case of the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the petitioner was stale, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that it is well settled law that learned Labour Court can always mold the relief in the event of the workman raising an industrial dispute with some delay and latches. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the claim of the workman is not justified and learned Labour Court should have had allowed the claim of reinstatement, but relief thereof could have been molded accordingly by the learned Court. On this count, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the rejection of the claim of the workman is not justified and learned Labour Court should have had allowed the claim of reinstatement, but relief thereof could have been molded accordingly by the learned Court. Learned counsel also argued that dismissal of the claim petition of the petitioner was otherwise also not sustainable for the reason that while doing so, learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that as earlier the decision of not making the reference to the Tribunal by the appropriate Government of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner on the ground of delay was set aside by this Court, in CWP No.4160 of 2015, decided on 15.10.2015. 10. Opposing the petition, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that there is no infirmity with the award which has been passed by the learned Tribunal. She submitted that it is a matter of record that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner after twelve years from the alleged date of his termination, though as per her, the services of the petitioner were never terminated, but he willfully left whatever duty he was performing with the Himachal Road Transport Corporation. She further argued that otherwise also, as the petitioner was not able to demonstrate before the learned Tribunal that there was any infringement of any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the employer, therefore also, the award passed by the learned Tribunal calls for no interference. On these counts, she prayed that the present petition being devoid of any merit be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the contents of the petition as well as documents appended therewith including the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the date on which as per the petitioner his services were terminated is 17.04.2001. It is also not in dispute that the industrial dispute was raised by the petitioner for the first time on 25.09.2013. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to demonstrate that in between this period, the petitioner had raised up the issue of his alleged illegal termination with the employer and the matter, thus, was alive one way or the other. There is not even an iota of evidence on record to demonstrate that in between this period, the petitioner had raised up the issue of his alleged illegal termination with the employer and the matter, thus, was alive one way or the other. Here is a case where for the first time the issue of the alleged illegal termination of the petitioner by the respondents was raised by the petitioner after a lapse of more than twelve years. 13. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Reference Court that the claim of the petitioner was stale, calls for no interference. It is not as if a workman can raise an industrial dispute at his will. The same has to be raised within some reasonable period as from the date when the cause of action accrued. However, in case an industrial dispute is not raised within reasonable period, but after some considerable delay, then the onus is upon the workman to demonstrate that he was not sitting over his rights, but was agitating the issue by one way or the other with the employer by either having approached the employer by way of correspondence etc. or through some other medium. Simply because a reference has been made by the appropriate Government, may be upon a direction which might have been passed by this Court, does not means that in exercise of its judicial powers, the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court cannot go into the issue as to whether the claim of the workman is stale or not. This being a judicial function and a judicial duty of the Industrial Court, the authority so conferred upon said Tribunal/Labour Court to adjudicate this issue cannot be curtailed unless a Superior Court returns the findings in favour of the workman to the contrary that the dispute which stands raised by the workman is not a stale dispute and the Tribunal stands by a Superior Court to adjudicate the reference on merit. 14. 14. Coming to the facts of this case, the judgment of this Court which was earlier passed in the petition which was filed by the petitioner, is being quoted hereinbelow: “It is contended that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by judgment, dated 30th December, 2014, delivered by this Court in a batch of writ petitions, CWP No.9467 of 2014, titled Partap Chand Versus Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and others, being lead case. 2. Issue notice. Mr. Romesh Verma, learned Additional Advocate General, waives notice on behalf of the respondents. 3. In the given circumstances, we deem it proper to direct the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners, in terms of the judgment (supra), and make a decision within eight weeks. The said judgment shall form part of this judgment also. 4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending miscellaneous applications, if any.” 15. This order was passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the background that as appropriate Government refused to forward the reference on the dispute raised by the petitioner therein, on the ground of delay, the petition was disposed of in terms of the order already quoted hereinabove by relying upon the earlier judgments passed by this Court, which were to the effect that it was not for the appropriate Government to turn down an industrial dispute and not refer it to the learned Tribunal/Labour Court on the ground of delay and latches. 16. Thus, it is not as if any direction was issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Writ Petition which was filed by the petitioner to the learned Labour Court per se that in the event of the industrial dispute being referred to it, said Court was precluded from going into the question of the staleness of the dispute. 17. Thus, it is not as if any direction was issued by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the Writ Petition which was filed by the petitioner to the learned Labour Court per se that in the event of the industrial dispute being referred to it, said Court was precluded from going into the question of the staleness of the dispute. 17. Incidently, this issue otherwise is not res integra and there are judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the effect that both the appropriate Government as well as the Tribunal can go into the question of staleness of the dispute and depending upon the facts of each case, an appropriate Government can reject reference of an industrial dispute to the learned Tribunal on the ground that the same is stale and similarly, even after a Reference having been made to the Tribunal, such Tribunal can reject the claim petition on the ground that the same is stale. Though, there are judgments that in matters where a workman has raised industrial dispute after some delay, learned Tribunal can mold the relief, but this law has to be understood in the facts of those cases where though delay in raising industrial dispute is there, but the delay has been explained by the workman. 18. In the present case, the delay of twelve years has gone completely unexplained as already observed hereinabove and in this view of the matter, this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition as the rejection of the claim of the workman by the learned Tribunal does not suffers from any infirmity. 19. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.