1 1. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4392/2006 Rajendra Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 2. S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2958/2006 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Anr. Date of Order :: 12.5.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. S.G. Ojha, for the petitioner -workman. Mr. N.K. Mehta, for the respondent-employer. ... These two petitions are preferred to challenge the award dated 16.4.2005 passed by the labour court, Bikaner holding the termination of the workman Sh. Rajendra Singh bad in eye of law, with a direction to reinstate him in service with a compensation of Rs.2500/-. Validity of the award aforesaid is questioned by the workman to the extent of grant of compensation instead of full back-wages. The employer has given challenge to the award in total. The argument advanced on behalf of the employer is that the industrial dispute was raised after a lapse of four years and no adequate explanation is given for causing such delay. It is also urged that the finding given by the labour court that the workman was in continuous employment is not substantiated by sufficient evidence. It is not in dispute that the workman was in employment of the employer since 19.1.1993. As per the workman he was terminated from service on 28.6.1994. Learned labour court by considering the entire evidence available on record and also by taking into consideration the fact that the relevant muster rolls were not produced by the employer before the court gave a finding of fact that the workman was in continuous 2 employment. Such finding of fact is not required to be interfered by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. So far as the delay of four years in raising the industrial dispute is concerned, suffice to state that no limitation is prescribed for raising an industrial dispute. The court is to see whether the workman has given any sufficient reason for causing such delay. This issue was raised before the labour court and despite that the court exercised its discretion in entertaining the dispute on merits, thus, such discretion exercised is also not required to be interfered. The petition for writ preferred by the employer, therefore, deserves to be rejected. So far as the writ petition preferred by the workman is concerned that is only to the extent of grant of compensation in lieu of back- wages. The labour court is having ample power, as per the provisions of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to grant desirable relief to the workman. In the present case the petitioner worked with the employer from 19.1.1993 to 28.6.1994 and looking to the small period of service, the labour court allowed compensation of Rs.2500/-. Accordingly, the writ petitions preferred by the workman as well as by the employer stands dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal