K.S. LODHA, J.-One Nisar Ahmad was employed as a casual labourer with the Works Inspectors, Bikaner on 18.4.77 and he worked intermftantly upto 30.12.79, when his services are said to have been terminated by a verbal order without following the procedure laid down u/sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Railway Casual Labourer Union thereupon raised a dispute on 6.9.83 and the Central Govt. referred the matter to the learned Judge Cent 1 Industrial Tribunal Jaipur. The case of the present petitioners was that Nisar Ahmad did not regularly work from 18.4.77 to 30.12.79 but had been engaged from time to time intermitantly whenever there was work avilable for him It was also urged that his services were not terminated by the petitioners but him himself ceased to come to work and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to comply with the provisions of Section 25F. The learned Judge, Labour Court held that although Nisar Ahmad had not put in more than 240 days of work in a calendar year hut was regular workman and his services could be terminated only by complying with the provisions of Section 25G. He, therefore, made an award holding that the termination of the Nisar Ahmads services w.e.f. 30.12.79 was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated. He also awarded back wages from 31-st Dec. 1977 till he was reinstated. This award has been made on 20.5.1988. The petitioners challenges this award by this writ petition. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. Four contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. His first contention is that the dispute was raised very much belatedly and, therefore, reference to the Labour .Court was not proper and in this connection he relied upon 1964 S.C. 1617. His second contention was that as a matter of fact it was not a case of retrenchment as the workman himself ceased to come to work and his services had not been terminated by the employer in this connection he pointed out that the very fact that the dispute was raised on behalf of the workman after more than 3 years goes to show that it was not a case of retrenchment. He also brought to my notice the fact that during the period from 18.4.77 to 30.12.79 Nisar Ahmad had not been regularly working but had been working only intermitantly and that also goes to show that whenever he wanted to work he came to work and whenever he did not want he did not come. His third contention is that the finding of the learned Judge Labour Court in respect of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act is perverse in as much as there is absolutely no evidence to show that any person junior to the workman namely Nisar Ahmad had been retained in service while the services of Nisar Ahmad had been terminated. He pointed out that only a casual statement has been made by Nisar Ahmad to the effect that Hari Vallabh and one Tiwari were working with him and they were junior to him. The last contention of the learned counsel for the petitionee was that the learned Judge improperly awarded back wages to the petitioner without taking into consideration the relevant circumstances most important of which was delay and laches on the part of Nisar Ahmad in raising the dispute because if a workman does not raise the dispute within a reasonable time and sits at home silently he cannot be awarded back wages as a reward for his own laches. 4. So far as the first three contentions are concerned I, do not find much substance in them. It is true that the dispute has been raised after more than three years but that by itself need not necessarily be fatal to the reference being made unless some more circumstances are brought to the notice of the authority concerned making reference and the question is also raised before the Court. In this case this point does not appear to have been raised in a clear manner and when Central Govt. has exercised its discretion in making a reference it will not be proper for this Court to set it at nought. As regards the question whether it was a matter of retrenchment or a case where the workman had himself abandoned work the learned Judge, Labour Court has come to a finding of fact that the workman did not abandon work but his services have been terminated and, therefore, this question of fact cannot be now agitated before this Court. 5. As regards the question whether it was a matter of retrenchment or a case where the workman had himself abandoned work the learned Judge, Labour Court has come to a finding of fact that the workman did not abandon work but his services have been terminated and, therefore, this question of fact cannot be now agitated before this Court. 5. Now comes the question of applicability of Section 25G. The workman Nisar Ahmad had clearly stated in his statement that Hari Vallabh and Tiwari were juniors to him which clearly implies that their services were not terminated while Nisar Ahmad who was senior to them had been retrenched. This part of the evidence occurs in the cross-examination of Nisar Ahmad and there does not appear to be any rebuttal thereof. Again the Tribunal has found that the employer had not maintained a seniority list in accordance with the Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules, 1957 and this has been not disputed before me. In these circumstances the termination of the services of Nisar Ahmad was clearly in violation of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act and his order of reinstatement is proper. 6. This brings me to the question of back wages. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the services of Nisar Ahmad came to an end on 31,12.79 and he got the dispute raised as late as on 6-9-83 and kept silence for more than 3 1/2 years; on account of this under delay and laches the workman should not have been awarded back wages as a reward for his laches. On the other hand it has been urged by Mr. Trivedi that when the termination of services of Nisar Ahmad had been found to be illegal and his reinstatement has been ordered and award of back wages must follow as a natural consequence. Mere delay should not disentitle him from it, specially when it has not been proved by the employer that Nisar Ahmad had been gainfully employed during this period. He also pointed out that this question had not been raised before the learned Judge, Labour Court and, therefore, cannot be agitated now. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. He also pointed out that this question had not been raised before the learned Judge, Labour Court and, therefore, cannot be agitated now. 7. I have given my careful consideration to the rival contentions. It is true that when the order of termination is found to be bad and reinstatement is ordered normally back wages have to be awarded but it cannot be a hard and fast rule and some more circumstances have to be taken, into account in granting the relief to workman whose services have been improperly terminated. One of the considerations for the award of back wages is also that the dispute is not unduly delayed because if a workman unduly delays his claim the employer is unnecessarily saddled with the back wages. It is also true that ordinarily it is only for the employer to establish that the workman had been gainfully employed during the period intervening between his termination and reinstatement but the workman also has to be prompt and dilligent pursuing his remedy for reinstatement and if he unnecessarily delays the matter he may disentitle him from back wages. Reference in this connection made to (1) Ram Lakhan Vs. Union of India and (2) Jai Bhagwan Vs. Management of Ambala Cooperative Bank where delay on the part of the workman was taken into account while disallowing whole or a part of the baek wages. I do not find force in the contention of Mr. Trivedi that since the objection had not been raised before the learned Judge, Labour Court it cannot be raised now. The question referred to the Tribunal was "Whether the Rly. Adm. of Bikaner Division, Northern Rly. Bikaner is justified in terminating the services of Shri Nisar Ahmad worker under I.O.W., Lalgarh, Bikaner w.e.f. 30.12.79. If not, to what relief is Shri Nisar Ahmad entitled to". (After determining the question of termination : whether it was proper or not the Tribunal was to consider what relief could be granted to the workman. The question of back wages was also involved in it and, therefore, the learned Judge, Labour Court, was required to address himself to the relevant considerations for the award of back wages and in doing so it was for him to have taken into account the fact of the dealy on the part of the workman. The question of back wages was also involved in it and, therefore, the learned Judge, Labour Court, was required to address himself to the relevant considerations for the award of back wages and in doing so it was for him to have taken into account the fact of the dealy on the part of the workman. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the workman should not have been allowed the whole of the back wages but should have been allowed only half of them. 8. The writ petition is accordingly partly accepted and the award of the learned Judge, Labour Court is modified to the effect that Naisar Ahmad will be entitled only to half the back wages on his reinstatement, I am informed by the learned counsel for the parties that Nisar Ahmad has already been reinstated. Looking to the circumstances I shall leave the parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition.