ANJANI KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits. ( 2 ) BY means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the impugned award dated 26. 5. 1982, passed by Labour Court, U. P. , Bareilly in adjudication case No. 206 of 1981, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. ( 3 ) THE facts giving rise to the filing of present writ petition are that concerned workman, namely, ved Prakash Sharma, who was an employee of the petitioner, whose services have been terminated in the year 1966, approached the State Government with the prayer that the matter of termination may be referred to the Labour Court when he was acquitted from the criminal Court from the charges levelled against him. The State Government referred the aforesaid matter by the order dated 07. 6,1981 to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court issued notices to the employer as well as the employeeworkman concerned. Both the parties have exchanged their pleadings and also adduced evidence. ( 4 ) THE Labour Court after going through the entire pleadings and evidence adduced by both the parties has found that no enquiry whatsoever has been conducted by the petitioner-employer before terminating the services of the workman concerned* It has also not been disputed that while terminating the services of the workman, provision of Section 6-N of the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the act), has not been complied with. In this view of the matter, the labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that the termination of the services of the workman concerned was illegal and directed for re-instatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer has emphasised that the direction of the Labour Court for re-instatement of the workman with continuity of service and full back wages deserves to be set aside on the ground that the services of the workman were terminated in the year 1966 and the workman has approached the State Government to refer the matter before the Labour Court in the year 1981, when the reference was made. In this view of the matter, according to the employer counsel the claim of the workman concerned had become stale as it was highly belated, therefore it should be rejected for latches and the reference should not have been made for this reason alone. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the direction for re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages ought not have been granted for the reasons that admittedly the workman concerned was criminally prosecuted, though ultimately he was acquitted, but the employer has lost his confidence for re-instatement of the workman, who has been criminally prosecuted. In any case, admittedly after the termination of the services of the workman in the year 1966, till the date of the award the workman has admittedly not worked, particularly the fact that the workman concerned was only a seasonal employee, therefore the direction of the Labour Court for re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages is wholly un-warranted and deserves to be set aside. ( 7 ) SO far as the delay in reference is concerned, the Apex Court in the case of Sapan Kumar pandit v. U. P. State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 2001 (90) FLR, 754, wherein the apex Court has ruled that once a reference is made, the Labour Court is under the legal obligation to answer the reference, unless it is demonstrated that the claim has become stale. There is neither any material on record, nor any argument advanced before the Labour Court that the claim has become stale. The only argument, which has been advanced, is that the reference is highly belated. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, it cannot be held that the labour Court has erred in answering the reference made by the State Government. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of direction of re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages, admittedly the workman concerned has not worked from the date of termination till the date of award. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of direction of re-instatement with continuity of service and full back wages, admittedly the workman concerned has not worked from the date of termination till the date of award. In this view of the matter, the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman concerned shall be entitled for reinstatement with effect from the date of award and will be entitled to draw his wages from the date of the award and he shall not be paid wages from the date of termination till the date of award for the reasons that the workman concerned has admittedly not worked during these period. . ( 9 ) IN view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is allowed in part with the aforesaid modification. However, the parties shall bear their own coats. . .