THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI W.P. No.10394 of 2000 Oral Judgment: This writ petition is filed assailing the Award of the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No.296 of 1990, dated 11.9.1996. The petitioner joined the 2nd respondent Corporation as contingent worker on 15.5.1969. Subsequently he was promoted to the post of Dairy Attendant with effect from 2.4.1974 and he was paid the basic pay and other allowances. Petitioner alleges that through order dated 13.8.1975, the 2nd respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. Challenging the order of termination, the petitioner filed an application under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ‘the Act’), being I.D. No. 296 of 1990. Before the Labour Court, in order to prove his case, the petitioner got himself examined as W.W.1. and got marked Ex.W1. On behalf of the respondent-management, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.M1 was marked. The Labour Court, having found that the petitioner, who was a regular employee was illegally terminated from service by the respondent-management, directed for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service. However, while taking into account the fact that the petitioner instituted the I.D. very belatedly, it declined to grant any back wages to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. In view of the fact that the petitioner, who is a regular employee was illegally terminated by the respondent-management through order dated 13.8.1975, the Labour Court was justified in passing the Award directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service. So far as denial of back wages is concerned, it is seen from the record that though the petitioner orally requested the respondent- management to reinstate him into service, but he did not make any written representation in that regard. However, when no action was taken by the respondent-management, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Labour Court in the year 1996, i.e., nearly after a period of 21 years. In view of the fact that there is an inordinate delay in instituting the I.D. before the Labour Court, the Labour Court was justified in denying back wages to the petitioner. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that assailing the very same Award, the respondent-management also filed a Writ Petition, namely Writ Petition No. 6710 of 1997 before this Court and through order dated 19.2.1997, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the said writ petition, while confirming the Award of the Labour Court, impugned in this writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Award of the Labour Court. The writ petition is devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________ T. Meena Kumari,J Date: 27th August, 2010 pnb