B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in the instant writ petition questions the validity and legality of the Award dated 4/04/1994 in I. D. No. 44 of 1993 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour court, Visakhapatnam. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with full back wages from the date of his illegal termination. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same and accordingly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuing a writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the same. ( 2 ) THE respondent-workman in his claim petition before the Tribunal stated that he was employed on 23/02/1985 as Works inspector on NMR basis under the control of the petitioner herein. He worked continuously till 15/05/1986. He was retrenched from service on oral orders without prior notice or written orders from the competent authority. It is the case of the workman that the petitioner-management did not follow the procedure contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the act ). The respondent-workman was drawing an amount of Rs. 18. 00 per day at the time of retrenchment besides Rs. 4. 50 Ps. towards agency allowance. The workman claimed to be a permanent workman as defined under Section 2 (a) of the Act. He worked for 1 year 2 months and 2 days. In the circumstances, the oral order of retrenchment was challenged. ( 3 ) IT is relevant to notice that the respondent-workman filed I. D. No. 11 of 1990 under Section 2-A (2) of the Act. Evidence was also recorded by the Labour Court. However, by an order dated 8/04/1992 the Labour court held that Section 2-A (2) has no retrospective effect and accordingly rejected i. D. No. 11 of 1990 filed by the respondent-workman. Thereafter the respondent- workman approached the Assistant commissioner of Labour, Rajahmundry for conciliation and also the Deputy Commissioner of Labour , Eluru. The Deputy Commissioner accordingly referred the matter vide the proceedings dated 31/12/1992 which is to the following effect:"whether the action of the Executive engineer, Irrigation Department, Godavari central Division, Dowleswaram and the deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation department, Rajahmuridry Sub-Division, rajahmundry in terminating the services of sri K. N. S. S. Hanuman, Ex. NMR Works inspector is justified? The Deputy Commissioner accordingly referred the matter vide the proceedings dated 31/12/1992 which is to the following effect:"whether the action of the Executive engineer, Irrigation Department, Godavari central Division, Dowleswaram and the deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation department, Rajahmuridry Sub-Division, rajahmundry in terminating the services of sri K. N. S. S. Hanuman, Ex. NMR Works inspector is justified? If not, to what relief he his entitled?" ( 4 ) THAT is how the present industrial dispute has been taken up for consideration with regard to the same issue relating to retrenchment of the petitioner as the one in ID. No. 11 of 1990. ( 5 ) THE petitioner-management filed counter contending that the industrial dispute is not maintainable, since the department cannot be treated as an Industry within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. The respondent herein cannot be treated as a workman. The respondent never worked for more than 240 days at any time as contended by him. His services were never terminated. But on the other hand, the workman himself has absented from attending the work. ( 6 ) THE Labour Court, having regard to the rival contentions, framed the following three points for consideration. 1) Whether the respondent is justified in terminating the services of the petitioner? 2) Whether the petitioner himself voluntarily absented from attending to duty as pleaded by the respondent? 3) To what relief? ( 7 ) IT is interesting to notice that both the petitioner management and the workman filed joint memo to treat the evidence recorded in i. D. No. 11 of 1990 as the evidence in this I. D. It was conceded by the petitioner management that the respondent workman has worked for more than 240 days and so he is entitled to claim benefits under Section 25-F of the Act. ( 8 ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that the respondent workman was removed from service by an oral order dated 16/05/1986 and he was not allowed to attend the work. The Labour Court also found that the respondent-workman worked for a period of more than 240 days and the termination of his service is without following the mandatory requirement as provided under Section 25-F of the Act and it would amount to retrenchment of the workman. It is under those circumstances, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with back wages immediately. It is under those circumstances, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with back wages immediately. The labour Court also awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of award till the date of reinstatement and payment of back wages. ( 9 ) LEARNED Government Pleader for irrigation submits that the award passed by the labour Court suffers from incurable legal infirmities. Learned Government Pleader submits that the Award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the respondent-workman filed I. D. No. 11 of 1990 after a period of more than four years of the so-called retrenchment and in the circumstances even if the respondent-workman is entitled for reinstatement he is not entitled for back wages. Learned Government Pleader also contends that awarding of interest at the rate of 12% per annum is totally unjust. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent-workman submits that the respondent-workman is entitled not only for the reinstatement but also for awarding the back wages. It is submitted that the petitioner herein in his counter in the Labour Court had not taken any plea of delay on the part of the respondent-workman in filing I. D. No. 11 of 1990 and in the circumstances, this Court may not permit the petitioner to raise that objection in this writ petition. ( 11 ) I have given, my anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of either party in this petition. The award, in my considered opinion, so far as it concerns the reinstatement and awarding of back wages, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petitioner even conceded before the Labour court that the respondent-workman has worked for a period of more than 240 days. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court holding that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman would amount to retrenchment and contrary to section 25-F of the Act in my considered opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity. The same is based on the evidence that was recorded in I. D. No. 11 of 1990. In the circumstances, the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court holding that the termination of the services of the respondent-workman would amount to retrenchment and contrary to section 25-F of the Act in my considered opinion, does not suffer from any infirmity. The same is based on the evidence that was recorded in I. D. No. 11 of 1990. It is required to notice that both the parties herein filed joint memo to treat the evidence that was recorded in I. D. No. 11 of 1990 as evidence in the present I. D. The Labour Court, having appreciated the evidence found the termination to be illegal. I do not find any merit whatsoever to interfere with the same. ( 12 ) THE second question that falls for consideration is as to whether the respondent-workman is entitled to any back wages. Learned Government Pleader submits that the respondent-workman invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal after a period of more than four years after his termination. Therefore the respondent- workman is not entitled to any back wages. Learned government Pleader placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh The Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum- processing Service Society Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1351 : 1999 (6) SCC 82 : 1999-I-LLJ-1260 in support of his submission. The Supreme Court in the said Judgment observed that the provisions of Art. 137 of the Schedule to limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under the Act and that the relief under it cannot be denied to the workmen merely on the ground of delay. The Supreme court however, observed that the plea of delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. It is held that no reference to the labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. The Apex Court further held that if no such plea regarding the delay is taken in the reference proceedings before the Labour Court, the High Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the Labour Court in the absence of pleadings and take the same into consideration for modifying the award passed by the Labour court. The Apex Court further held that if no such plea regarding the delay is taken in the reference proceedings before the Labour Court, the High Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the Labour Court in the absence of pleadings and take the same into consideration for modifying the award passed by the Labour court. In the instant case, there is no plea as such taken by the petitioner-management about the delay on the part of the respondent- workman in filing the claim petition challenging the order of termination. The labour Court had no occasion to consider as to whether on account of such delay any prejudice had been caused to the petitioner-management. In the circumstances, this Court cannot permit the petitioner-management to raise such plea for the first time in this writ petition. Following the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajaib singh s case the plea raised by the petitioner-management relating to delay is accordingly rejected. There is absolutely no reason or justification for substituting the opinion of this Court for that of the Labour court. At any rate, nothing is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition as to how the said delay has caused any prejudice to the petitioner-management. In the circumstances, it is not possible to interfere with the award of the Labour Court awarding back wages to the respondent- workman from the date of his termination till reinstatement. ( 13 ) THE next, question that falls for consideration is as to whether there is (sic) any justification on the part of the Labour Court in awarding interest on the back wages? The respondent-workman was admittedly working on daily wages. It is an admitted fact that he has invoked the jurisdiction of the Industrial tribunal after a period of four years from the date of his termination. In such circumstances, i am not inclined to award any interest as such on the amount of back wages. That portion of the award shall stand modified. The respondent-workman is not entitled for any interest on the back wages. ( 14 ) IN the result, the award dated 4/04/1994 passed in I. D. No. 44 of 1993 is confirmed directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with back wages from the date of retrenchment till reinstatement into service. That portion of the award shall stand modified. The respondent-workman is not entitled for any interest on the back wages. ( 14 ) IN the result, the award dated 4/04/1994 passed in I. D. No. 44 of 1993 is confirmed directing the reinstatement of the respondent-workman into service with back wages from the date of retrenchment till reinstatement into service. However, the respondent-workman is not entitled for any interest on the back wages. The award is accordingly modified. The writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.