Judgment S.B.Sanyal, J. 1. These two writ petition, is have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2566/88 assails an award dated 23rd November, 1987, dismissing the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement as being overstate. Similarly, the claim of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 2518/88 for reinstatement has been dismissed as being overstate by an award dated 30th November, 1987. 2.In C.W.J.C. No. 2566/88 and C.W.J.C. No. 2518/88 the awards were rendered on reference made to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (No. 2) Dhanbad, under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). C.W.J.C. No. 2566 of 1988. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner was engaged by the State Bank of India as a Cashier on a purely temporary basis between the period 4.9.1967 and 28.5.1968 at Patna Main Branch of the Bank. The engagements were for a fixed period in terms of letters of engagement. The total number of working days was 268 days. The Tribunal found that the termination was not preceded by a statutory notice, even though it was retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act without compliance of Sec. 25-F of the Act. It also found that the dispute was raised almost after 18 years of the termination. It is believed that in between the raising of dispute and the termination the concerned workman did not at all file a representation, because beyond production of postal certificate, even the office copy of the representation had not been produced before the Tribunal. It, therefore, held that the certificates of posting (Ext. W. 1 series) could not show that the concerned workman had sent any letter to the Management for his employment after termination of his service. The Industrial Dispute was found to have been raised sometime in the year 1982 or 1983. The reference Was made by the appropriate Government on 17th January, 1986. According to the Tribunal, the delay of 14 years remained unexplained and, therefore, the claim was overstate justifying no relief. The petitioners scale of pay was Rs. 140 per month plus usual clearness allowance and house allowance. C.W.J.C. No. 2518 of 1988. 4. The reference Was made by the appropriate Government on 17th January, 1986. According to the Tribunal, the delay of 14 years remained unexplained and, therefore, the claim was overstate justifying no relief. The petitioners scale of pay was Rs. 140 per month plus usual clearness allowance and house allowance. C.W.J.C. No. 2518 of 1988. 4. In this writ petition the petitioner was appointed as Money Tester in Bistupur Branch of the State Bank of India, Jamshedpur and he worked during the period 15.7.1967 and 16.4.1968 for a period of 263 days on a salary of Rs. 140 per month plus usual dearness allowance etc. The Tribunal found the termination of the service of the petitioner as retrenchment without compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. It further found that the Industrial Dispute was raised sometime in the year 1975 or 1979. It further held that the concerned workman did not produce any copy of the letter alleged to have been sent through certificate of posting (Ext. 7 series) and, therefore, it concluded that the concerned workman had not pursued the matter of his termination and appointment for a period of 8 years the delay has not been explained. The reference under Sec. 10(1)(d) of the Act appears to have been made on 17th January, 1985. It held the dispute to be overstale and, therefore, the petititioner is not entitled to any relief whatsoever. 5. Mr. S. Roy Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Tribunal erred in law in refusing to grant any relief, even though it found the retrenchment of the petitioners to be contrary to law. Relying upon a decision in the case of the State Bank of India V/s. Shri N. Sundara Money -- , learned Counsel submitted that the reinstatement is the only relief that follows out of the illegal termination of the services of the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also drew my atttention to an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court dated 1.9.1986 in Nand Kishore Lohia V/s. State Bank of India, Patna, Civil Appeal No. 3335 (NL) of 1984 and The State Bank of India V/s. Presiding Officer, Dhanbad and Anr. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also drew my atttention to an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court dated 1.9.1986 in Nand Kishore Lohia V/s. State Bank of India, Patna, Civil Appeal No. 3335 (NL) of 1984 and The State Bank of India V/s. Presiding Officer, Dhanbad and Anr. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1985, where the apex court allowed 50% of the back wages with effect from the date of termination, namely, 15.9.1967 upto the date of award and directed reinstatement within four weeks in the appropriate grade without reference to the qualification prescribed in the rules. 6. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State Bank of India, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal was justified to hold the claims to be stale and the case is fully covered by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Shalimar Works Limited V/s. Their Workmen -- and in Inder Singh and Sons, Ltd. V/s. Their Workmen (1961) (2) LLJ 89. Learned Counsel submitted that even though it is true that the law of limitation, which bars a civil court from giving remedy in respect of lawful rights, should not be applied by Industrial Tribunal; but it is well accepted in industrial adjudication that overstale claims should not generally be encouraged or allowed, unless there is satisfactory explanation for the delay. This has an unsettling effect on the employers financial arrangement. In his oral argument as well as in his written argument learned Counsel for the Bank offered a sum of Rs 50,000 (fifty thousand) to each to the petitioners by way of compensation. It was submitted that in large number of cases of this type the Bank evolved a scheme of compensation, according to which, the effect of a sum of Rs. 50,000 has been made. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties as also on perusal of the awards, it is crystal clear that the termination of the services of the petitioner was wholly illegal. Spurt of gases arose in such type of termination after the Supreme Court gave its clear verdict in the case of the State Bank of India V/s. Shri. N. Sundara Money, (supra) in the year 1976 and thereafter almost in all cases an order of reinstatement followed. Spurt of gases arose in such type of termination after the Supreme Court gave its clear verdict in the case of the State Bank of India V/s. Shri. N. Sundara Money, (supra) in the year 1976 and thereafter almost in all cases an order of reinstatement followed. There is no absolute proposition of law that in no case relief could be granted merely because there is delay in raising the industrial dispute. It has, however, a strong bearing on the back wages payable by the employer in the event an order of reinstatement is passed. The Management cannot be made to suffer for the delay in racing the demand giving rise to the industrial dispute. On the part of appropriate Government there has also been delay in making the reference inasmuch as the reference was made to the Tribunal after three to four years of the raising of industrial dispute. The Tribunal having found the termination of service to be illegal could not have completely denied any relief to the petitioners on the ground that, that would lead to flood (sic) gate of litigation. In the case Shalimar Works Limited, (supra) relief on by the Tribunal the Supreme Court observed that the appropriate Government must not make delay in making reference after failure of the conciliation proceeding, particularly when the dispute relates to the discharge of workmen wholesale. The Supreme Court refused to grant relief o reinstatement of all the workman because of the vagueness of the reference and refused to reinstate the workmen in the said case. In Inder Singh and Sons Ltds case (supra), the relief of compensation and extra wages were given from the date of demand. In Nand Kishore Lohias case (supra), the Supreme Court awarded 50 per cent back wages from the date wrongful retrenchment was effected. 8. On consideration of all facts and circumstances of these cases, I am of the opinion that there has been long unexplained delay in raising the industrial dispute by the petitioners, as found by the Industrial Tribunal. However, the Bank has offered compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000 to each of the petitioners for their illegal retrenchment and I think that should be the amount of back wages, which, in the facts and circumstances of the cases appear to be just and fair. However, the Bank has offered compensation of a sum of Rs. 50,000 to each of the petitioners for their illegal retrenchment and I think that should be the amount of back wages, which, in the facts and circumstances of the cases appear to be just and fair. Since the termination of the services of the petitioners is found to be illegal, the State Bank of India is directed to reinstate the petitioners within two months from today in the appropriate grade, provided they have not attained the age of superannuation and they are medically found fit without reference to the prescribed qualification in the rules now prevalent. 9. In the result, the two awards (Annexure-9 in C.W.J.C. No. 2566/88 and Annexure-24 in C.W.L.I.C. No. 2518/88) are quashed with the aforesaid directions and observations.