S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

1. This writ petition is filed by the workman challenging the order of respondent No. 1 vide which it declined to make a reference.

2. Services of the petitioner were terminated on 11.5.1982. He issued a demand notice on 28.10.1982. The petitioner filed a writ petition being CWP No. 17058 of 2000. The writ petition came before us. We did not enter into the merits of the writ petition but gave directions as under :-

"Without going into the merits of this case, we dispose of this writ petition by directing respondent No. 1 to take a decision on the representations dated October 15, 1985 and January 21, 2000 (copies Annexures P-2/A and P/3 respectively) made by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from this Court or production of a certified copy thereof by the petitioner, whichever is earlier.

The decision be taken by passing a speaking order which shall be conveyed to the petitioner."

Respondent thereafter passed a speaking order which is under challenge in this writ petition. The order is dated 19.3.2001. Copy of the said order is at Annexure P/5.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. This case illustrates as to how delay and laches in filing the writ petition can come in way of a party seeking relief which it would have sought much earlier. The respondent has stated in the impugned order as under :-

"3. It has been reported by office that the records of this office pertaining to industrial disputes covered under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 pertaining to the nineties were weeded out in the late nineties. Therefore, the original file pertaining to aforesaid demand notice dated 28.10.1982 and failure report dated 31.12.1982 of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, Yamuna Nagar, are not available. The records of . various representations referred to in Annexure P-3 (including the Annexure P-3 itself and Annexure P-2/A) are to reported to be available in this office. He could not produce any evidence regarding submission of his representation as referred to in Honble High Courts order dated 12.12.2000. Not even original of Annexure P-3 is available in the office. The petitioner Sh. Suresh Chander in para 4 of Annexure P-3 has himself admitted by saying that he learns that his case was rejected and refused from being referred to Labour Court on 7.2.1983. The only possible conclusion that follows from this is that Sh. Suresh Chander very much knew about the rejection of this dispute m February 1983 but thereafter he did not raise any grievance by way of making representation etc. for a long period of over 17 years. It appears in these circumstances that for making a case in the above said writ petition he at a later stage has concocted a false story of making various representations as referred to in Annexure P-3 (in fact un-dated) in order to cover the delay of over 17years."

This shows that the case has become so stale that the necessary record is not available.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of Pale Ram v. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2000(1) SCT 677. It is a judgment given by one of us (S.S. Sudhalkar, J.) sitting as a Single Judge of this Court. The judgment dealt with the delay in raising an industrial dispute and also the principle laid down in the case of Ajaib Singh v. The Sirhind Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd. and another, reported as J.T. 1998(2) SCT 93 (P&H) (DB) : 1999(3) SC 38 and Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavakutty and others, reported as .

6. In the case of Ajaib Singh (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the case of the workman cannot be rejected only on account of delay while in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. (supra), the dispute was held to be a stale one.

7. In the case of Pale Ram (supra), the case was remanded to the authority for fresh decision in accordance with law. It was held that it was for the Labour Court to consider the question as to whether the petitioners could be granted any relief in view of the delay.

8. This being the position, the facts in the case of Pale Ram (supra), and in this case are totally different. Here, in this case, it is not necessary to consider whether the dispute raised after a long delay should be referred to the Labour Court. In this case, the contention of the petitioner is that he had already raised a dispute vide demand notice dated 28.10.1982 i.e. after about 5 months of the date of his termination. Therefore, we were not called upon to consider the question of delay in raising the dispute because there was no delay as such if the date of demand notice as stated by the petitioner is correct. The question before us is whether after such a long delay, the petitioner can approach this Court to ask the respondents to act upon the said demand notice. As stated earlier, much time has elapsed after the demand notice was issued and the respondent is not in a position to trace out the record.

9. When the petitioner came before us in Civil Writ Petition No. 17058 of 2000, we thought it appropriate to direct the respondent to take decision on the representations. However, from the impugned order, which has been passed in compliance with the directions given by this Court in the said writ petition, we find that this writ petition should not be entertained. Because of the inordinate delay, the record with the respondent is not available and the matter has become stale. It can be seen that the demand notice is alleged to have been issued on 28.10.1982 while the earlier writ petition was filed in the year 2000. The respondent has also mentioned that the petitioner did not raise any grievance fora period of 17 years. He allowed the matter to become state.

10. No limitation has been prescribed in the Limitation Act in filing the writ petition. However, that does not mean that the writ petition can be entertained in cases, where the matter has become stale. In the case of Shreyans Paper Mills Ltd. v. Labour Court, Patiala, a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (S.S. Sudhalkar) was member, found that when there was no tangible explanation offered for the delay in filing the writ petition of more than one year, it was held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The petitioner could have shown some tangible reasons for the delay which has occasioned. However, except the contention that he was making representations, no reason has been stated for the delay.

11. In view of the above facts, this writ petition filed at a belated stage, when the matter has become stale, cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. It is hereby dismissed.

12. Writ petition dismissed.