Manisana, J.: - By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged an award of the Labour Court, Gauhati dated 20.2.70 made against him in Reference Case No. 13 of 1969. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The petitioner Bhakra Kharia was an illiterate labourer (whom we shall refer to as the "workman") of Hathibari Division of the Nabarani Tea Estate (which we shall refer to as the "Tea Estate"). At the relevant time, the workman was a member of Akhil Bharatiya Chan Mazdoor Sangha, a registered Trade Union. On 6.2.68 the Manager of the Tea Estate framed a charge against the petitioner and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why be should not be dismissed or otherwise punished. The workman also was placed under suspension with effect from 6.2.68. The charge runs in the following terms : "On 4.2.68 at 0800 Hrs. (1ST) you went and planted paddy seed in khet No. 251 which is licenced out to Shri Jagaroath. On 3.2.68 you were warned not to do so by the Assistant Manager of Hathibari himself and who also sent Shri Sukhia Chowkidar on 4.2.68 to warn you again but you did not listen to him and broadcast the paddy seed on the land ploughed by Shri Jagarnath for the Ahu Crop." The Manager himself was the Inquiring Authority. On 21.2.68 he gave his findings holding that the workman was guilty of disobeying the order of the Assistant Manager-in-charge of the Tea Estate. On 22.2.68 the Manager dismissed the workman from his service with immediate effect. On 23.2.68 the Manager issued a notice to the petitioner directing him, inter alia, to vacate the quarter which the workman was occupying then. The matter was referred to the Labour Court, Gauhati. The Labour Court, in Reference Case No. 13 of 1969, made an award dated 20.2.70 against the workman justifying the dismissal. Before the charge was framed by the Manager, on 5.2.68 Jagarnath, who claimed to be in possession of the land in dispute, lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-charge Rangapara Police Station stating that since 1965 he was cultivating the khet No. 251, which was the subject of the charge framed by the Manager but the workman and four others trespassed upon the land on 4.2.68 at 8.00 a.m. and broadcast the paddy seeds. The police registered a case. After usual investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the workman and four others under section 447, IPC. The learned Magistrate Tezpur, in G R Case No 151 of 1968, framed charge against the workmen and others under section 447, IPC to which they pleaded not guilty On 5.7.69, the learned Magistrate acquitted the workman and others on the charge holding that the accusation against the workman and others was false. The learned Magistrate, in his judgment, observed that be would refer the matter to the A.D.M (J) to prosecute the complainant, the Manager and the Assistant Manager of the Tea Estate under section 193, IPC for fabricating evidence with intention of harassing workman and others and that he would also draw up a proceeding under section 250, Cr PC against the compalnant, the Manager and tie Assistant Manager. Thereafter Title suit No. 5 of 1971 was also filed in the Court of the Sadar Munsiff Tezpur against the workman for evicting him from khet No. 251. The suit was dismissed on 5.5.76. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the award made by the Labour Court has error apparent on the face of the record for non-consideration of the findings of the criminal Court. 4. It is important to note that the records of the Reference Case No. 13 of 1969 of the Labour Court are not before us. The Labour Court has informed the Registry of this Court that the records of the Reference Case No. 13 of 1969 was one of the missing record. We, therefore, are to dispose of this petition on the materials available before us. Paragraph 29 of the petition reads as follows : "That the finding of the Enquiry Officer in Annexure III, holding the workman guilty, in one sentence is no finding at all and the criminal case filed on the same allegations against the workman was found to be maliciously false and the trying Criminal Court filed complaint against the Manager and the complainant for fabricating and all these facts were pleaded before the Labour Court and the learned Labour Court's Award without considering all these facts was not justified and it was in violation of natural justice." The Respondents have not denied the facts stated in the passage quoted above. In the absence of denial in the affidavit-in-opposition, we treat that the order of criminal Court was available before the Labour Court. However, the decision of the criminal Court was not before the Disciplinary Authority. A close reading of the award shows that the Labour Court has not considered the findings and decision of the criminal Court. 5. The next question which arises for consideration is what would be the effect of the non -consideration of the findings and decision of the criminal Court. In Corporation of the City of Nagpur vs. Ramchandra, AIR 1984 SC 626 , the Supreme Court has held that the question whether or not the departmental proceeding pending against the employee involved in a criminal proceeding should 62 continued even after his acquittal In criminal case is a matter which is to be decided by the department after considering the nature of the findings given by the criminal Court. Normally where the accused is acquitted honourably and completely exonerated of the charges it is not expedient to continue a departmental inquiry on the very same charges, or grounds or evidence. However, merely because the accused is acquitted, the power of the authority concerned to continue the departmental inquiry is not taken away nor its discretion in any way fettered. 6. Keeping in view the above decision of the Supreme Court let us now examine the present case. The subject of dispute in the criminal Court referred to above and that before the Labour Court and Disciplinary Authority was the same. In the criminal case, the learned Magistrate, as already stated, gave findings that the accusation against the workman was false and made also an observation that he would refer the matter to the A. D. M. (J) to prosecute the complainant, the Manager and the Assistant Manager for fabricating the evidence with intention of harassing the workman and other, and that he would also draw up a proceeding under section 250, Cr PC against the complainant, the Manager and the Assistant Manager. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the findings of the criminal Court have material bearing on the subject under consideration in the present case. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, the findings of the criminal Court have material bearing on the subject under consideration in the present case. If the Labour Court considered the findings of the criminal Court, its decision might have been otherwise in such a situation, the omission to consider the findings of the criminal Court by the Labour Court is an error apparent on the face of the record. For the reasons stated, the award made by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. 7. Shri D. N. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent, Tea Estate, has submitted that the petitioner was guilty of laches therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. The contention of the learned counsel is that the award was made on 20.2.70 and the writ petition was filed on 28 6. 77. 8. In the present case, the delay has been explained thus. The workman is an illiterate labourer. The Manager of the Tea Estate led the workman to believe that if the suit referred to above would fail, the workman would be reinstated. The workman was also advised by the local advocate that he should wait for the result of the suit. After disposel of the suit, the workman was further advised that due to amendment of the Constitution during the emergency, no writ could be filed against the award of the Labour Court. The respondent, Tea Estate, has denied the explanation given by the workman in the affidavit-in-opposition. But the affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Assistant Manager and not by the Manager himself. 9. It is true that the delay has to be explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The question is one of discretion to be exercised on the facts of each case. There is no lower limit, and there is also no upper limit. The delay depends on what breach of the fundamental right and right claimed are, and how the delay arose. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was an illiterate labourer. Civil and criminal cases were instituted against the workman. He was advised rightly or wrongly from time to time. In such a case, it would not be fair to presume that the petitioner knew that the writ petition should have been filed within a certain time. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner was an illiterate labourer. Civil and criminal cases were instituted against the workman. He was advised rightly or wrongly from time to time. In such a case, it would not be fair to presume that the petitioner knew that the writ petition should have been filed within a certain time. Considering overall circumstances of the case, we are of the view that to throw the petition out on the ground of delay, will defeat justice. 10 The next question then is, Whether the matter is to be sent back to the Labour Court ? Or, Whether the proceeding is to be terminated here? Considering the findings of the criminal and civil Courts, as already, discussed above, and in the light of the above decision of the Supreme Court together with the fact that the petitioner was dismissed on 23.2.68 and the sword has been hanging over his head for more than 19 rears, we are of the view that to terminate the proceeding will meet the ends of justice. 11. For the reasons stated above, the award dated 20.2.70 passed by the learned Labour Court Gauhati in Reference Case No 13 of 1969 and the order of dismissal passed by the Manager of the Tea Estate are hereby quashed, and no fresh enquiry shall be held against the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner shall be entitled to ail the consequential benefits that may be entitled to him under the law. With the said observations and direction the petition is allowed. No costs. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that the learned counsel on both sides prayed for one-month time to settle the matter out of the Court. The prayer was allowed on the condition that, if they did not report the progress within one month, the judgment would be delivered, promise could be effected was reported only on 17.8.87. Hence judgment delivered today.