WP(C) 2480/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well a s Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 17.1.2001 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in Refere nce Case No. 10/1992. By the said award, workmen involved in the reference has b een held to be not entitled any relief except the two workmen who in the meantim e had arrived a compromise settlement with the management. As will be evident fr om the impugned award and also from the record of the Tribunal, the Union did no t take any steps before the Tribunal for progress of the proceeding except prayi ng for adjournment after adjournment. Such adjournments were prayed for on 3.7.2 000, 4.8.2000, 7.9.2000, 23.10.2000, 3.1.2001 and lastly on 17.1.2001. In betwee n an adjournment was granted awarding a cost of Rs. 500/-. However, the said cos t was also not deposited. In such a situation, the Tribunal had no other option than to answer the reference in the particular manner. The case is a very old one. The reference is of 1992 and by an o rder dated 31.3.1994 passed by the Tribunal, it was held that the domestic enqui ry conducted by the Management was not valid in law. Thereafter a writ petition was filed by the Management, which was registered and numbered as Civil Rule No. 2542/1994. The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 20.8.1999 directing the Tribunal to dispose of the matter within 6 months as the matter was very ol d. After such remand of the matter, the workmen and for that matter, the Union d id not take proper steps for progress of the proceeding. As has been recorded in the impugned award dated 17.1.2001 they took several adjournments and in the pr ocess even adjournment cost was also not paid. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Dharappa Vs. Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers Societies Union Ltd. reported in (2007) 9 SCC 109 so as to emphas is that delay itself is fatal. He submits that although the reference was made w ay back in the year 1992, but almost 19 years, thereafter there was no effort on the part of the workmen to get the matter finalised. In this connection the obs ervation of the Apex Court in paragraph 29 of the judgment is quoted below: This Court while dealing with Sections 10(1)(c) and (d) of the ID Act, has repeatedly held that though the Act does not provide a period of lim itation for raising a dispute under Section 10(1)(c) or (d), if on account of de lay, a dispute has become stale or ceases to exist, the reference should be reje cted. It has also held that lapse of time results in losing the remedy and the r ight as well. The delay would be fatal if it has resulted in material evidence r elevant to adjudication being lost ore rendered unavailable (vide Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty; Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways, Asstt. Executive E ngineer v. Shivalinga and S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager). When belated claims are considered as stale and non-existing for the purpose of refusing or rejecting a reference under Section 10(1)(c) or (d), in spite of no period of li mitation being prescribed, it will be illogical to hold that the amendment to th e Act inserting Section 10(4-A) prescribing a time-limit of six months, should b e interpreted as reviving all stale and dead claims. The reference having been made in 1992 and this Court having pro vided for conclusion of the proceeding within 6 months and even otherwise also i t was incumbent on the part of the workmen and/or the Union to take steps in the matter towards finalisation of the proceeding. Instead they kept on taking time merrily. It is in this context, Mr. Sahewalla, learned Sr. Counsel for the resp ondent No. 2 submits that the claims of the workmen have become stale and non-ex istent and consequently no interference is called for in respect of the impugned award. Considering the matter in its entirety and having regard to the conduct of the workmen and/or the Union in the entire episode, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned award. Consequently, the writ petition is dismis sed.