ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—The Petitioner-Corporation is before this Court, aggrieved by the award dated 7.11.1998 passed in K.I.D. No. 617 of 1988. 2. The Respondent-workman was a probationary Conductor with the Petitioner-Corporation. His service came to be dispensed with by the Corporation on 9.4.1976. Aggrieved by the said discontinuance, he filed a petition under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act in K.I.D. No. 617 of 1988. 3. Matter was contested. After contest, the Labour Court has passed the following award: Petition is partly allowed. Respondent is directed to reinstate the claimant into service with continuity of service as per instruction of Ex.W-1 but without backwages. 4. This award is challenged by the Corporation in the case on hand. 5. Heard Smt. Meena Ramachandra, learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation and Sri Prabhuling K. Navadgi, learned Counsel appearing for the workman. Perused the impugned award. 6. The admitted facts reveal that the Petitioner was a Conductor having worked for some time as a probationer. His service has been dispensed with on the ground of his unsuitability for the said post of Conductor in the year 1976. He has moved the Labour Court in the year 1998. The management though filed a Counter statement, has not chosen to lead any evidence, whatsoever. The workman however led evidence. In these circumstances, the Labour Court in the absence of any evidence, what so ever, has ordered reinstatement. The Labour Court has stated that an opportunity is to be given to the workman, but even otherwise, there is no evidence placed before the Court with regard to his unsuitability as a Conductor. The management for the reason best known to it, has not chosen to discharge the burden in the matter of removal of a probationer. In the absence of any evidence, the Labour Court is justified, though not on the ground of opportunity, in ordering reinstatement. In these circumstances, I do not want to disturb the grant of reinstatement in the absence of any evidence by the management. The order of reinstatement is confirmed. 7. Smt. Meena Ramachandran, learned Counsel however complains about the workman approaching the Labour Court after a lapse of 12 years. She says that delay is fatal to the case on hand. In the normal circumstances, delay may be a factor against the workman. The order of reinstatement is confirmed. 7. Smt. Meena Ramachandran, learned Counsel however complains about the workman approaching the Labour Court after a lapse of 12 years. She says that delay is fatal to the case on hand. In the normal circumstances, delay may be a factor against the workman. But in the case on hand, I must point out that there is an amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act in terms of Section 10(4-A), by the State Government. The said amendment provides for filing of an application within 6 months in terms of the amendment. When a Statute itself gives a right to the workman in the matter of approaching a Labour Court regarding his removal, in terms of the amended Section 10(4-A), I do not think that the Corporation can complain delay against the workman. The workman has only exercised his statutory rights in terms of the amended provisions of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, the question of delay cannot be pressed into service, in the light of Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act and on the facts of this case. 8. The Counsel, however, complains that the learned Judge has not given backwages but he has given continuing of service. The workman having slept over the matter from 1978 to 1988, cannot have the benefit of continuity of service for the said period. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to confirm the award of reinstatement. But, however I restrict the continuity of service only from 1988 and not for the earlier period. 9. In these circumstances, this Writ Petition is partly allowed. The award is suitably modified in terms of this order. 10. Ordered accordingly.