CWP No. 1055/2010 08.07.2011 Present: Mr. R. S. Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P. M. Negi, Dy. A.G. for the respondents. Undisputedly, the petitioner’s grievance with regard to his oral termination pertains to the period 1999 and he approached the authorities raising the demand only in the year 2008. In between this period, there is nothing on record to show that the demand was kept live with the ”employer”. No communication whatsoever in this regard was ever made with the employer. It is contended that petitioner, in the year 1999 itself had handed over the papers to his Advocate for pursuing the matter with the employer/other authorities, but however due to the fault of the Advocate the matter could not be pursued with the employer/other authorities. The affidavit filed by the Advocate does not fully support this contention of the petitioner. That apart, the Full Bench of this Court in CWP No. 1486/2007 titled as Liaq Ram vs. State of H.P. has held that if the workmen of the Union have kept the dispute alive and even if no action has been initiated, it would not mean that the dispute would cease to exist. The words “kept the dispute alive” have to be read in the context of the dispute being alive vis-a-vis the employer and the employee and not the employee and his Advocate. The Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh has, therefore, rightly not favourably considered the petitioner’s demand for referring the matter to the Tribunal, there being unexplained delay for a period of nine years. 2. Reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Lajpat Rai & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1401 is misconceived in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, more so keeping in view the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit placed on record. Petition is disposed of. July 08, 2011 ( Sanjay Karol ), (rana) Judge.