Judgment :- 1. By the impugned award (Ext P3) dated 17-6-1978 the 4th respondent-Tribunal found that the two workers represented by the 1st respondent-Union were denied employment by the petitioner contrary to the provisions of the Kerala Agricultural workers Act, 1974 (Act 18 of 1974). Witnesses were examined on both sides. Documents also were produced on both sides. The Tribunal on a consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that the workers in question had been employed by the petitioner in the previous season in the land belonging to him and that he was therefore in law liable to offer them employment in preference to others. The Tribunal placed much reliance upon the register maintained by the Panchayat showing that the workers in question had been employed by the Petitioner for a considerable period of time. This register has been maintained by the Panchayat in Form 7 in terms of R.20 of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Rules, 1975. As against this register, the petitioner produced the register maintained by him purportedly in Form 8 in terms of R.23 of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Rules. But that register was not accepted as reliable evidence for the reason that admittedly it has been maintained only since the dispute commenced. Thus the Tribunal on a proper appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion which is now under challenge. This is a finding of fact with which this Court does not ordinarily interfere. 2. However, Shri Nandakumara Menon appearing for the petitioner submits that there are serious infirmities in the award. In the first place he points out that the petitioner is not an employer within the Act, for, as evidenced by the levy notice, which was produced before the Tribunal as Ext. B2, he owns land below the limit mentioned under S.42. According to Counsel the Tribunal ought to have found that the petitioner did not own more than one hectare in extent of land. In answer to this contention, the 1st respondent's counsel Shri Jayakumar rightly points out that the petitioner had admitted in his written statement that be was in possession of 2 acres 90 cents which is more than 1 hectare If that is the position it is not possible to hold that the petitioner is exempted from the provisions of the Act. Perhaps as pointed out by Shri Nandakumara Menon the petitioner made a mistake in stating that he was in possession of 2 acres 90 cents and his total holding is only as shown in the levy notice (Ext. B2). If that were the real position one would have expected the petitioner to have sought permission of the Tribunal to correct the written statement. No such attempt was made. There is no whisper in his evidence before the Tribunal that the extent of" land stated by him in the written statement was a mistake. All that he stated in his evidence was that he owned 2 and odd acres of land. His evidence on the point is meagre and vague. It cannot contradict his own plea In the circumstances there is no merit in the contention that the petitioner is exempted from the provisions of the Act. 3. The more formidable contention of Shri Nandakumara Menon is that the award is vitiated by long delay. The reference to the Tribunal was made by the District Collector in terms of S.22(4) as early as 27-7-1976. The order of reference was received by the Tribunal on 31-7-1976. There is no mention in the award of the long delay in making it, although the petitioner had filed on 15-10-1977, what is styled as an additional written statement with a prayer to drop the proceedings on the ground that the period of one month mentioned under S.22 (4) had long expired and the Tribunal was no longer competent. Although this additional written statement was styled as such, it was in effect a petition to drop the proceedings and it should have been disposed of by a specific order. There is no reference at all to this in the award. The award was made on 17-6-1978 which was almost two years since the date of reference. Nevertheless the Tribunal did not refer to the reason for the delay. There is no reference at all to this in the award. The award was made on 17-6-1978 which was almost two years since the date of reference. Nevertheless the Tribunal did not refer to the reason for the delay. On the face of it the award is contrary to the letter and spirit of S 22 (4) which reads as follows: "Where an agricultural dispute has been referred to an agricultural Tribunal under sub-section (4), the Tribunal shall hold its proceedings expeditiously and shall, as soon as practicable after the conclusion of the proceedings, but not later than thirty days from the date of receipt of the reference by the Tribunal, submit its award to the District Collector." Of course, Shri Jayakumar is perfectly justified in pointing out that the delay oh the part of the Tribunal should not prejudice the cause of the workers. Counsel also rightly points out that this Court has already considered this question and has held that the section is only directory and that the delay as such would not vitiate an award. The Section states a principle which is of great importance, particularly to the workers. The intention of the legislature is that the Tribunal should forthwith proceed to consider a question referred to it and come to a finding as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 30 days from the date of receipt of the reference. Speed is of the essence of the legislative intent in enacting this provision which is meant to confer a benefit on a large section of people. The fact that a provision is construed to be directory and not mandatory does not mean that it can be ignored without doing violence to the statutory intent. The section is meant to be obeyed implicitly, although failure to do so would not necessarily vitiate the award. That is all that it means. There was absolutely no justification on the part of the Tribunal, which is a statutory authority invested with quasi-judicial functions, to have delayed the proceeding as long as two years and not to have mentioned in the order the reason for the delay. This is a matter of serious concern and I have no doubt that expeditious steps would be taken by the concerned authorities to avoid delays of this kind in the future. This is a matter of serious concern and I have no doubt that expeditious steps would be taken by the concerned authorities to avoid delays of this kind in the future. However, the delay which has not been caused on account of the fault of the parties - the Government Pleader says that there is nothing in the files to show that the parties were in any manner responsible for the delay - should not cause prejudice to those who have benefited by the award, especially when, as in the present case, they happen to be the workmen. I upheld the award. The Original Petition is dismissed. No costs.