Judgment :- The award of the Labour Court, Kannur in I.D.No.3/1993 is under challenge at the hands of the management of a Co-operative Society. There was a direction for reinstatement of the worker concerned with full back wages. Award has partly been implemented by reinstating the worker. There is no objection about the direction for granting continuity of service benefits arising there from. The objection is about the direction for payment of full back wages, for the period from 28.12.1987, till September, 1995. The brief facts are as given below. Worker, Smt.K.P.Syamala was engaged as a Beedi roller in the petitioner-Co-operative Society from 1984. According to her, she was constrained to take leave on 28.12.1987 due to illness of her child who had been hospitalized. She was absent admittedly without leave. The society had issued a notice to her by registered post, but she did not receive it as she was not available in station. It is the case of the worker that she had again approached the employer after about a week and requested for three months leave, and hoping that the application would be favourably considered, had abstained from work. When she returned she had been informed that her name had been removed from the rolls of the society. A dispute was raised in due course and order is seen to have been passed by the Government, on 11.11.1992, referring the dispute of denial of employment for adjudication. 2. It is found that by the impugned award the Labour Court had granted all possible reliefs to her. During the pendency of the Original Petition, she had been reinstated so as to avoid payment of 17 B wages and as at present she is working. I do not think that there are sufficient reasons to interfere with the award, in so far as it directs reinstatement. It was a case where the employer had not followed the prescribed procedure for a termination and violation of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act obviously is there, rendering the ‘retrenchment’ illegal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be on strong grounds when he submits that in the matter of awarding back wages, the Labour Court had failed to apply its mind to all the relevant aspects. According to him, the Society did not deserve to be imposed with a burden of back wages. 3. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be on strong grounds when he submits that in the matter of awarding back wages, the Labour Court had failed to apply its mind to all the relevant aspects. According to him, the Society did not deserve to be imposed with a burden of back wages. 3. Though a contention had been raised by the petitioner that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction since parties are to be governed by the Co-operative Societies Act, it was not seriously prosecuted. The first respondent is a workman in an industry and it was within the jurisdiction of the Government to notice the industrial dispute and make a reference. 4. Therefore, the question is as to whether the award could be sustained. As reinstatement has been granted already, the areas of adjudication could be subjected to a general examination, with particular reference to the circumstances where award for back wages could be admissible and its extent. 5. The termination of service was brought about in December, 1987. However, here it is not disputed that steps for raising a dispute were initially made in 1991. The reference of the dispute was in November, 1992. The petitioner submits that a person if at all need be compensated only when there is diligence shown, and these aspects have not been noticed. According to him, it was not a case where there was any mala fide action on the part of the petitioner-society. The workman chose to absent herself, and had walked in and walked out as she liked. It was a case of indiscipline, but a discharge was resorted to. She had courted the termination, as employment was only secondary need for her. The payment of full back wages notwithstanding all these circumstances, by a worker's Co-operative Society, the counsel submits is illogical and ruinous. 6. Since the point is directly in issue, I may examine the contentions in detail. An adjudicator appointed has to function, bearing in mind the obejectives of the Industrial Disputes Act. The avowed objective of the Act is for investigating into and the settlement of disputes. The argument is that by resolution of the dispute, the award has created bleeding wounds, and therefore the objective of the Act cannot be claimed as having been fulfilled. 7. The counsel has been able to drive in the point. The avowed objective of the Act is for investigating into and the settlement of disputes. The argument is that by resolution of the dispute, the award has created bleeding wounds, and therefore the objective of the Act cannot be claimed as having been fulfilled. 7. The counsel has been able to drive in the point. The responsibility of the Labour Court is much more than the jurisdiction exercised by a civil court, or an arbitrator. He has to have foresight about the impact the award would make on the Society as well as the employer and he is not just determining the lis as is ordinarily understood. The statute has given him full authority to prescribe remedy, at his discretion, and he is not fettered by any procedural formalities. He can very contracts as existing between the management and workmen so as to suit the particular requirement of situation. In short, he has to be a friend and guide of the employee as well as the employer, as the earliest steps had started from conciliation. It could be stated that the jurisdiction is really inherent, and not statutory. It cannot but be emphasized that after prescribing the qualification of the adjudicator, the statute understandably has withdrawn from the scene, leaving discretion to the Tribunal to decide issues on principles of equity and good conscience. The parties as well as the Government have confidence in his expertise. He is expected to assess the situation. The issue has to be tackled with meaningful understanding, in the larger interests of the community. 8. The law is not strictum jus, as an industrial adjudicator in seeing not only an individual worker, nor a single employer amongst the array of parties. Those who are present before him are representatives of the community. He has to be abreast with the social, economic and political changes. The medicines are to be prescribed most suitable and at his discretion. The need for security of job and better condition of work has to be examined with reference to the very existence of the industry, and its intrinsic health. Set pattern seldom work, what is good for the goose may not agree with the gander. Thus the responsibility of adjudication is indeed a balancing act. 9. A finality to the award is prescribed taking into consideration the unenviable role played by the adjudicator. Set pattern seldom work, what is good for the goose may not agree with the gander. Thus the responsibility of adjudication is indeed a balancing act. 9. A finality to the award is prescribed taking into consideration the unenviable role played by the adjudicator. Findings of facts entered into by him are usually left as they are. Appeal against the award lies to the Supreme Court alone, and the High Court examines only whether there is an error of law committed while appraising the situation. The judicial pronouncements have laid broad parameters for his guidance, and the award necessarily has to be passed taking note of the facts of the individual case. There is no strait jacket formula to be applied, ever, and one should be conscious as to the impact the award is likely to make on the parties, and the society generally. 10. In adjudicating the issues, the Labour Court has therefore to be realistic and receptive in appreciating the situation. In this case, for example, full back wages are directed to be paid. But, there is nothing on record to indicate that a realistic approach, has been attempted. It should have been enquired as to whether she was gainfully employed during the period, or whether it was a case where the management had to resort to proceedings exasperated by the conduct of the worker. The areas of enquiry also were to include as to whether any circumstances prevented the employee from eking out a livelihood during the interregnum, for she might have had duties towards her dependents. It could have been also relevant, about the delay in espousing the dispute, for which the employer was not answerable. Likewise, the impact of such a direction for payment of full back wages vis-à -vis an establishment viz., whether it would have been able for the industry to bear the burden also cannot go unnoticed. 11. Although in most of the matters dealt with in the Act, a distinction has not been drawn between large establishments and individual units, in the matter of awarding reliefs, the Tribunal is expected to visualize the impact the order would have on the unit. The Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe any guidelines in the matter of adjudication process. In the matter of reinstatement, the objection about loss of confidence as one relevant principle has come to be accepted. The Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe any guidelines in the matter of adjudication process. In the matter of reinstatement, the objection about loss of confidence as one relevant principle has come to be accepted. In an individualistic unit, for example, it will not be in anybody's interest to direct reinstatement of a workman who is under the cloud of suspicion. In the case of wrongful termination, reinstatement though has been accepted as a normal rule, in every case, the matter has to be objectively examined, and direction issued. 12. Coming to the specific issue of back wages, the larger interest of the stability of the industry is extremely relevant. There is no point in making a unit sick, even in an extreme instance, where the finding is that the action leading to the dispute was wholly a creation of the employer. The relevant aspects to be looked into have however discussed earlier. 13. It is not as if there is dearth of judicial pronouncements in these areas. Back wages normally cannot be denied without adequate reasons being presented (See Sri Ishwarbhai B.Vhandra v. Union of India and Others [1994 (2) LLJ 878). Necessity for a discussion about the issue is highlighted in the decision. A direction for payment of back wages normally follows the findings (See H.S.Chandra Shekara Chari v. Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C and another 1999 (4) SCC 611). The contra positions where back wages could be withheld may be gatherable from the decisions in Deputy Commissioner of Police and Others v. Aklag Ahmed [1995 (2) LLJ 669] and Government of Tamil Nadu and Another v. K.Rajaram Appasamy [(1997) 5 SCC 57]. Thus the position appears that the case at hand has to be decided, taking note of the individual facts, and framing appropriate issues on the aspects on which judgment is pronounced. 14. I hold that laches and delay on the part of an employee in raising a dispute also is one of the relevant circumstances, which should come within the ambit of discretion while granting reliefs. A worker’s society, as in the present case, would be crippled if the full back wages are directed to be shelled out. Smt.Shyamala had left the Society without doubling that her application for leave would not be sanctioned. A worker’s society, as in the present case, would be crippled if the full back wages are directed to be shelled out. Smt.Shyamala had left the Society without doubling that her application for leave would not be sanctioned. After attending to all her domestic problems she comes back after three months, to find that her name has been struck off from the rolls. Thereafter, she settles down in life for over two years, and then has raised a dispute. The reference comes after almost three years. After adjudication process, award is passed and published in Gazette in September, 1995. The Labour Court nevertheless has passed a routine direction to pay the full back wages. I am definite that the circumstances as above do warrant interference. 15. The inordinate delay do affect the adjudication process and interest of the parties. There was built in mechanism to ward off the evil. Under Section 12(6) of the Act, the conciliation proceedings have to be completed within a fortnight and a report has to be sent to the Government. When reference order is passed, the Government is obliged to prescribe the time limit for passing of an award. Under Section 10(2A), when an order is passed by the Government, simultaneously there is a direction that the award should be passed within the specified period prescribed. In the case of an individual dispute of the present nature, it is mandatory that an award is to be passed within three months. Extension should be for specific reasons to be recorded. The delay as happened in the present case never might have been conceived by the statute. The direction for payment of back wages for eight years is liable to be vacated for the above reason alone. 16. Now, the question is whether the matter has to be remitted back for a fresh disposal, as regards the issue of back wages. Considering the antiquity of the case and other relevant aspects, I do not think that for this purpose alone, the matter need be sent back. 17. This is a case where the workman normally could not have been eligible for any back wages, but taking into account all relevant circumstances, I think that it will be appropriate if she is paid 25 per cent of the normal emoluments that she would have drawn. 17. This is a case where the workman normally could not have been eligible for any back wages, but taking into account all relevant circumstances, I think that it will be appropriate if she is paid 25 per cent of the normal emoluments that she would have drawn. But this is with the restriction that such payments will be for the period from the date of reference till the date of award. Her service will be deemed as continuous and uninterrupted for all other purposes, as have been held by the Labour Court. With this modification of the award, the Original Petition is disposed of.