THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.19656 of 1999 ORDER: In this Writ Petition the petitioner, retired employee of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, is questioning the proceedings in letter No.4199/Lab.I/A1/98-1, dated 24-10-1998, by which the first respondent – Government rejected to refer the matter for adjudication of the dispute raised by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner suffered punishment order dated 19-01-1988 in which the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect was ordered as a disciplinary measure. Though the said order was of the year 1988, the petitioner union viz., Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Karmika Sangh filed representation on 17-10-1996 raising an industrial dispute questioning the validity of such order. On failure of conciliation by the conciliation officer, conciliation report dated 19-09-1997 was referred to the Government. Based on such a report, the Government passed the impugned order rejecting to refer the matter for adjudication by the Tribunal on the ground that dispute was raised after lapse of more than eight years from the date of cause of action. 3. In this Writ Petition it is a case of the petitioner that there are no valid grounds to reject the reference. The learned counsel in support of his contention placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Avtar Vs. State of Haryana[1]. 4. In this case it is not in dispute that the order of punishment of stoppage of one year increment was passed as early as 19-01-1988. The dispute is raised by filing a representation to the union only on 17-10-1996, nearly after eight years. 5. In Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P.Madhavakutty[2] the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in spite of absence of statutory limitation period, such power cannot be exercised to revive settled matters or to refer stale disputes. In this case the petitioner did not move any representation for eight long years. In that view of the matter, the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Ltd.’s case come in the way of the petitioner to question the validity of the order. As much as it is stated that petitioner was retired from service and as the dispute was raised after eight long years after passing of the order, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition to interfere with the order of the Government rejecting reference. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit. 6. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 20th February, 2009. Skmr IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 19656 of 1999 Between: Sri P.P.N.Rao S/o P.Pochaiah, Musheerabad Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C., R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Principal Secretary to Secretary to Government Labour, Employment, Training & Factories (Lab.I) Deapartment, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Depot Manger, Musheerabad Depot, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.1 in not referring the dispute the labour/court of Industrial tribunal for adjudication through his letter as arbitrary and illegal and issue a consequently direction directing the respondent No.1 to refer the matter/dispute to the appropriate labour court / industrial tribunal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.THIRUPATHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : [1] AIR 1985 SC 915 [2] (2000) 2 SCC 455