JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed against the award dated 01.05.2012 passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner whereby the claim of the workman was rejected basically on the ground of delay. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under:- The petitioner who was appointed on 01.08.1981 as 'Beldar' on daily wages by the department is alleged to be terminated on 01.06.1984. Against the said termination the workman raised his claim for the first time on 14.01.2005 when he moved an application for reference of his dispute to the Labour Court. Acting upon the application of the workman the dispute was referred by the Government to the Labour Court on 15.05.2006. In the claim petition before the Labour Court, the workman specifically stated that in the year 2003 certain other employees who were at par with him were reinstated in the service by the department and when he came to know about the said fact in the year 2005, he also raised the dispute. Besides the said version it has only been averred that he had been approaching the respondent authorities continuously but no heed was paid to it. 3. Per contra it is the case of the respondent department that the services of the workman were not retrenched but he himself left the job on his own will. A specific objection by the respondent department was raised before the Labour Court pertaining to the delay of more than 20 years caused in raising the dispute by the workman. 4. The learned Labour Court relying upon the ratio as laid down in Kuldeep Singh v. G.M., Instrument Design D & F Center & another; AIR 2011 SC 455 has held that after lapse of 20 years the dispute had become stale and therefore the reference of the same cannot be held to be valid. On basis of the said findings the Labour Court also concluded that had there been illegal retrenchment of the workman, he would have raised the dispute soon after his retrenchment but as he did not do so, it would be concluded that he was gainfully employed and had left the job on his own free will. On basis of the said findings the Labour Court rejected the claim petition of the workman against which the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. On basis of the said findings the Labour Court rejected the claim petition of the workman against which the present writ petition has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once a dispute had been referred to the Labour Court, the Labour Court was under an obligation to decide the same on merits and could not have rejected the same only on the ground of delay. Counsel relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Karan Singh v. M/s. Executive Engineer Haryana State Marketing Board reported in (2007) 14 SCC 291 , wherein it was held that, "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 the present case, the Industrial Tribunal has held that the employer has violated Section 25F. If so, the order of termination is bad in law. It has to be struck down. In the present case, it has been struck down. However, the Tribunal had refused to grant any relief on the ground of delay. The Tribunal has no authority to invalidate the reference, particularly when it has found that the order of termination violates Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947." 6. Per contra counsel for the respondent submitted that in the present case, the dispute itself was raised by the workman for the first time after a delay of 20 years and no ground or reason for such delay has been given by the workman. So far as the appointment of other similarly situated employees in the year 2003 is concerned, counsel for the respondent stated that the said persons were appointed in pursuance to orders passed by the High Court in the writ petitions filed by those employees. 7. Counsel argued that although no limitation has been provided for filing of the claim and reference of the dispute to the Labour Court, it ought to be within a reasonable time and the period of 22 years in the present matter cannot be termed to be reasonable. 8. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984 . 8. Counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prabhakar v. Joint Director Sericulture Department and Ors. reported in AIR 2016 SC 2984 . 9. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. All the judgments as referred by the counsel for the petitioner are the matters wherein the Labour Court had in exercise of its jurisdiction adjudicated the matter and passed an award of reinstatement in favour of the claimant. It was in those circumstances that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the matter where a dispute itself has been raised after a long delay, reinstatement cannot be the only remedy and it ought to be substituted by compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in all these matters clearly opined that in the cases of delay the relief ought to be moulded and compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be a better remedy. 12. In Prabhakar's Case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the matter wherein the reference of the dispute itself was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court after a period of 14 years. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the specific issue whether reference of such a belated claim was appropriate and whether the dispute can still be treated to be surviving? Dealing with the issues the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:- "42. To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the Act, yet it is for the 'appropriate Government' to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words 'at any time' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry. 43. 43. On the application of the aforesaid principle to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that High Court correctly decided the issue holding that the reference at such a belated stage i.e. after fourteen years of termination without any justifiable explanation for delay, the appropriate Government had not jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non-existing dispute." 13. Applying the ratio as laid down in the above mentioned judgment the present is also a matter where reference itself has been made by the Government after a period of 20 years and in view of Prabhakar's judgment, the same is not tenable as the Government had no jurisdiction or power to make reference of a non existing dispute. Moreover, it has been clearly admitted by the workman in his cross-examination that he raised the dispute only because he came to know that certain other employees were reinstated by the department in the year 2003. 14. Interestingly the dispute was not raised even in the year 2003 and the workman kept waiting for a period of another two years after that. As held in AIR 1989 SC 674 ; Roop Diamonds & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., a person who files a petition belatedly, cannot be granted a relief only on the basis of the ground that the similarly situated person had been granted that relief. The Hon'ble Apex Court held, ".... petitioners are re-agitating claim which they had not pursued for several years. Petitioners were not vigilant but were content to be dormant and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided....." 15. Another relevant fact to be taken into consideration in the present matter is that the petitioner was allegedly retrenched in the year 1984 and now he has reached the age of superannuation. No effective relief can therefore, now be granted to the workman at this stage. 16. In view of the ratio as laid down in the Prabhakar's judgment (supra) and in view of the observations made above, no ground for interference in the award of the Labour Court is made out. 17. Therefore, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.