1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL(W) NO.565/1996 The Chairman -cum- Managing Director, Hindustan Zinc Limited & anr. Vs. Hind Zinc Majdoor Union Zinc Smelter Debari & ors. Date of Order :: 23-01-2007 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI S.N.JHA HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Shri D.R. Bhandari for the appellants. Shri Mahesh Bora ] Shri B.L. Tiwari Dy.G.A.] for the respondents. **** This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.7.1996 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.3838/1988 allowing the writ petition of respondent nos.1 and 2. The respondents had approached the High Court challenging the order of the State Government dated 29.10.1988 refusing to refer the dispute to the labour court for adjudication. The Government took the view that respondent no.2, Om Prakash Siroya, had indulged in wrong punching (of the attendance register) for claiming overtime for which, after inquiry, he had been awarded punishment of stoppage of one day's salary and denied promotion, which appeared to be proper. It would appear that the State Government went into the merit of the claim, and virtually adjudicated the dispute itself. At the stage of consideration of the report of the conciliation officer under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Government 2 is not supposed to adjudicate the claim. The claim is to be adjudicated by the labour court on reference. We thus do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the order of the State Government. However, if the reference has not been made by the Government during the intervening period, the claim would appear to have become stale with the passage of time. The State Government passed the order on 29.10.1988 which means that the cause of action must have arisen to the respondents earlier. With the passage of about two decades, from the accrual of cause of action, we do not think it would be an appropriate exercise of jurisdiction under Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act to refer the dispute for adjudication at this stage. Counsel for the parties are not aware whether pursuant to the order of the learned Single, the dispute was referred to the labour court or not and if so, the result thereof. In that view of the matter, we clarify that if reference was made, our above observations would not be taken into consideration. But in case reference has not been made till date, the State Government may not make reference at this stage. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of. [GOVIND MATHUR],J. [S.N.JHA],CJ. Skant/-