CWP 11803/2009 1 In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. ** Civil Writ Petition No. 11803/2009 Nangu Vs. The State & ors. Date of Order ::: 20/10/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Ranvir Singh, for petitioner. The petitioner, as alleged in the petition, had worked on daily wages basis from 23rd October, 1978 to April, 1980 and his services were dispensed with without due compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F, G and H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 against which he filed application before the Conciliation Officer for the first time in the year 2008 after almost 28 years of the alleged date of termination. Since no settlement could be arrived at, failure report was sent by the Conciliation Officer. However, the State Government vide its order Anx. 4 dt. 02/07/2009, in exercise of its powers under Section 12(5) of the Act of 1947, declined to make reference on the premise that the application filed for the first time in regard to the alleged termination, was filed/submitted by the petitioner workman after 28 years and this being a stale claim, not considered it justified to refer the matter for adjudication. It is true that there is no limitation provided for raising of a dispute under the provisions of the Act of 1947 but when there is CWP 11803/2009 2 an inordinate delay, that has to be reasonably explained and what has been averred by the petitioner in para No. 11 of the application is completely vague and does not disclose the efforts made by him for raising the dispute after 28 years of the alleged date of termination. The appropriate Government is certainly not supposed to examine the merit of the dispute but at the same time can examine prima-facie as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the issue raised requires adjudication but on account of the inordinate delay, which remained unexplained, this Court does not find any error being committed by the authority declining to make the reference under Section 12 (5) of the Act of 1947. Consequently, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. (Ajay Rastogi), J. Raghu/11803-CW-2009-final.doc CWP 11803/2009 3