JUDGMENT S. B. Sanyal, J. This writ petition is directed against an award dated 10th September, 1984, in Reference Case No. 35 of 1983 (Annexure 3) by which the concerned workman has been reinstated as Electrical Helper without any back wages. 2. Mr. Sinha appearing on behalf of the Management assailed the award on two grounds: (i) The determination of, service of the workman having occ8ssioned sometime in the year 1975, the demand admittedly was raised in the Year 1983, after about eight years, and there fore, the claim is stale; and, (ii) The reference being for reinstatement of Shankar Nonia as an Electrical Apprentice the Tribunal has transgressed the reference by ordering reinstatement of an Electrical Helper. 3. In support of the point of the Management that the claim is stale, learned counsel has relied upon the decision reported in lnder Singh & sons Ltd. vs. Their Workmen (1961 (2) L. L. J. 89) equivalent to Supreme Court Labour Judgments, Vol, I, Page 104, as also in the case reported in Guest, Keen, Williams Private Ltd. Vs. P. J. Sterling [(1958) 2 L. L. J. 405] equivalent to Supreme Court Labour Judgments, Vol. IV, page 2837. The ratio of these two decisions only show that while adjudicating a dispute, where there has been delay in raising the demand, the Tribunal should be careful in deciding the date from which the relief should be given. That matter should reeve particular attention of the Tribunal. It will Dot be expedient for the Tribunal to throw away the claim on the ground of acquiescence and estoppel in the adjudication of the industrial dispute. From perusal of the award, it is manifest that the Tribunal has borne that matter in mind since it has not granted any back wages to the workman while reinstating him under the award. Had the Tribunal given back wage to the workman from the date of alleged termination from service, much could have been said. The Tribunal could have granted back wages to the workman at least from the date of demand, but it has refrained from doing so. I am, therefore, not impressed that the Tribunal should have thrown away the reference on the ground of delay in raising the demand. The two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the Management do not justify taking the view canvassed before me. I am, therefore, not impressed that the Tribunal should have thrown away the reference on the ground of delay in raising the demand. The two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the Management do not justify taking the view canvassed before me. Coming to the question of transgressing the scope of reference, there appears to be some substance. The reference reads as hereunder: "whether demand of the workman of New Dharmaband Colliery of M/S. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, for reinstatement of Shri Shankar Nonia, Electrical Apprentice is justified? If so, to what relief is the said workman entitled and from what date ?" From the reference, it appears that the demand was for reinstatement of shankar Nonia Electrical Apprentice, whereas the Tribunal has reinstated him as Electrical Helper. The Tribunal while passing the impugned order has relied upon the evidence in the case that the person was working as an Electrical Helper. It has, therefore directed that on his reinstatement, the workman will get the wages of Electrical Helper. It cannot be said that the Tribunal bas gone beyond the scope of the reference if the matter is approached from the angle as to what relief, in the event of reinstatement, Shankar Nonia is entitled to, The Tribunal has merely held that on his reinstatement. Shankar Nonia will get the wages of Electrical Helper. The Tribunal was conferred with the power to determine the benefit and it has so done. In ultimate analysis it cannot be said that the Tribunal has transgressed the scope of the reference. 5. Another aspect to the matter cannot be lost sight of. It is an admitted position that by virtue of an order of this Court, the petitioner has been working since 1986 pursuant to the award (Annexure 3). It is true that the said order was rendered with a clear understanding that it should be with out prejudice to the case of the petitioner. For five years, the workman has worked, and if today the Court is called upon to deprive him of his job, justice would be massacred. Such cases must receive humanitarian approach and cannot be decided on mere technicality of law. 6. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.