JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. This writ petition arises out of an award dated 3/4th April, 1995, passed by the Labour Court, Agra, holding that Respondent-workman is entitled to be regularised on the post of Work-charge Crain Operator with effect from 1.4.1969. 2. The brief facts of the case are that U.P. State Electricity Board was constituted u/s 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. Respondent No. 4 Raghubir Singh was engaged by the U.P.S.E.B. as a Work-charge Crain Operator with effect from 1.10.1965. According to the employers, he was regularised/ absorbed in the regular establishment on the said post with effect from 1.3.1973 on completion of three years continuous service on the post of Operator Grade-I in terms of the Board order dated 12.10.1971. 3. The Respondent-workman claimed his right to be absorbed in the regular establishment on the post of Operator Grade-I with effect from 1.4.1970 instead of 1.3.1973. 4. Due to dispute of date on which regularisation was to be effected, U.P. Bijli Karamchari Sangh raised an industrial dispute espousing the cause of the Respondent-workman. After failure of the conciliation proceedings, the State Government referred the following matter of dispute to the Labour Court, Agra, for adjudication in exercise of powers u/s 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. On receipt of summons, the parties filed their written statement and gave evidence before the labour court. After perusal of the record and the evidence adduced before it, the labour court gave a finding of fact that Raghubir Singh workman concerned was entitled to be regularised on the post of Operator with effect from 1.4.1969. Aggrieved by the award, the Petitioner U.P. State Electricity Board filed the present writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the finding in the award before this Court. 6. The main contentions of the counsel for the Respondents are that: (1) There is no post of operator in U.P.S.E.B. and Respondent No. 4 was rightly given designation of Work-charge Crain Operator with effect from 1.3.1973 in terms of the Board order dated 12.10.1971. (2) There is a delay in approaching the labour court, which is fatal to the case of the Respondent-workman. 7. (2) There is a delay in approaching the labour court, which is fatal to the case of the Respondent-workman. 7. To resolve the short controversy, copy of letter, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, is to be examined as this very letter is the basis of claim for regularisation and has been relied upon by both the parties in support of their respective stand in the case, Paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the aforesaid letter are relevant for purposes of this case, but in order to understand the purpose behind the Board order, complete letter is being quoted below: (1) I am directed to say that the Board have decided that the system of making appointment to various posts under your control on w/c basis should completely be stopped forthwith. Henceforth all recruitments should be made only against regular, temporary or permanent posts, after proper selection from amongst such candidates only who fulfil the prescribed academic and other qualifications for such posts. (2) Appointments on daily rated basis may however, continue to be made in respect of unskilled workers only. Such workers shall be paid a consolidated minimum daily wage of Rs. 3.50. If it is necessary to engage the service of skilled workers, regular temporary posts should be created for the purpose by the competent authority when there is full justification to do so. This does not however, preclude the appointment for meeting purely casual requirements if skilled workers in trade like carpenter, blacksmith etc. or such consolidated daily wages as the competent authority may consider to be suitable for such casual work. (3) As regards the w/c employees, who were in service on the date of this order, the Board have decided that such of these employees who had completed 3 years or more of continuous service on 1.4.1969, shall be absorbed against regular temporary/ permanent posts with effect from 1.4.1969. Thereafter the rest of the existing w/c employees shall also be so absorbed in future, w.e.f. the actual date of completion of 3 years of continuous service. (4) Such employees should, however, be asked to produce certificate of medical fitness from a Medial Officer, not below the rank of M.O. I/C of a Government Dispensary. Their appointment to the regular post shall also be subject to the further condition that their character and antecedents are found by the appointing authority to be satisfactory on verification. (4) Such employees should, however, be asked to produce certificate of medical fitness from a Medial Officer, not below the rank of M.O. I/C of a Government Dispensary. Their appointment to the regular post shall also be subject to the further condition that their character and antecedents are found by the appointing authority to be satisfactory on verification. (5) The w/c employees mentioned in para 3 above should be absorbed against temporary/ permanent post that may be vacant in the regular post. In case the number of w/c employees to be absorbed in pursuance of the above decision exceeds the number of available vacancies, proposals for the creation of additional number of regular temporary posts to accommodate such employees may please be furnished immediately. Before submitting these proposals to the Board, you may kindly satisfy yourself of the exact state of affairs by calling for a list from the S.E. concerned, which list will show the names of the remaining w/c employees due for absorption, the date from which they have been in continuous service; the rate of pay (and scale, if any) at which they were drawing pay on the date of completion of 3 years of service, the posts on which they are working at present and those who have so far been absorbed in regular vacancies. These proposals will be scrutinised by the Board, who will take steps to create the required number of regular temporary posts for such w/c employees from the date on which each of them has completed 3 years of continuous service and formal orders for their appointment may then be issued. (6) The cases of any officers of status equivalent to Gazetted Officers of the State Government if engaged on a w/c basis may please be reported to the Board separately for orders. Details in regard to them may be furnished as per the list specified in para 5 above, through semi official letter addressed to Sri Ashok Chandra, Jt. Secretary, U.P.S.E.B. (7) These orders are in supersession of all previous orders on the subject of regularisation of w/c employees. Sd. Illegible 8. Details in regard to them may be furnished as per the list specified in para 5 above, through semi official letter addressed to Sri Ashok Chandra, Jt. Secretary, U.P.S.E.B. (7) These orders are in supersession of all previous orders on the subject of regularisation of w/c employees. Sd. Illegible 8. From reading of paragraphs 1, 3 and 5 of the Board order, it is crystal clear that the appointment on work-charge basis was completely stopped forthwith and the recruitments thereafter were to be made only against regular, temporary or permanent posts after proper selection from amongst such candidates only who fulfil the prescribed academic and other qualifications for such posts. Further those work-charge employees, who had completed three years or more continuous service on 1.4.1969, be absorbed in future against regular, temporary or permanent posts with effect from 1.4.1969. A list of remaining w/c employees was to be called for from the Selection List concerned showing the names of all the remaining work charge employees due for absorption with particulars of their service, so that posts may be created for their appointment if number of w/c employees exceeded the posts available. The aforesaid list along with the proposal for absorption was also required to be submitted in respect of those existing work-charge employees, who had not completed three years continuous service on 1.4.1969 and were to be absorbed in future after completion of three years continuous service. 9. The date of appointment given by the employee is November, 1964, which is disputed by the Board as 1965. Even if the contention of the U.P.S.E.B. is accepted that the workman was employed in the year 1965, he would complete three years continuous service in the year 1968, hence the Petitioner had completed three years continuous service on or before 1.4.1969 in terms of paragraph 3 of the aforesaid letter. 10. The labour court has disbelieved the case of the employers taken in the written statement that there was no post of Operator in U.P.S.E.B., as their own witness Jagdish Verma, Head Clerk (E.W. 1) admitted that Respondent-workman was appointed in the year 1964 on the post of Work Attendant, which was re-designated as Work-charge Crain Operator in the year, 1965. The labour court has disbelieved the case of the employers taken in the written statement that there was no post of Operator in U.P.S.E.B., as their own witness Jagdish Verma, Head Clerk (E.W. 1) admitted that Respondent-workman was appointed in the year 1964 on the post of Work Attendant, which was re-designated as Work-charge Crain Operator in the year, 1965. It is admitted in his evidence that the Petitioner was working as Operator Grade-I on 12.10.1971 and that Raghubir Singh had completed three years continuous service as Work-charge Crain Operator but not as Operator Grade-I. 11. A perusal of the Board order dated 12.10.1971, shows that it does not speak any grade in various posts of workman, but only speaks the entitlement of absorption of work-charge employee on completion of three years continuous service. 12. The reasons given by the employers for non-regularisation of the workman, i.e., non-completion of three years continuous service in a particular grade are baseless have not found favour with the labour court being against the record and it cannot be said that the reasoning of the labour court suffers from any illegality or infirmity. 13. In so far as the delay in approaching the labour court and interference by this Court are concerned, counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Assistant Executive Engineer, Karnataka v. Shivalinga, (2002) 1 LLJ 457 SC . In the aforesaid case, the services of Respondent on 25.5.1985, were terminated. He approached the labour officer on 17.3.1995 raising an industrial dispute. Thus, there was delay almost of nine years in approaching the labour court. It has been held by the labour court in the aforesaid case that it would be impossible to maintain the records for such a long period and in those circumstances it found that the delay of nine years would be fatal to the case and on that basis, rejected the reference against which the writ petition was filed. The Apex Court held that in cases where there is a serious dispute or doubt in such relationship and records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of maintenance of the same. The Apex Court held that in cases where there is a serious dispute or doubt in such relationship and records of the employer become relevant, the long delay would come in the way of maintenance of the same. It further held that a situation of that nature would render the claim to have become stale, which was exactly the situation arising in this case and held that the High Court was wrong in having interfered with the award made by the Tribunal. 14. The instant case is not a case of termination, but only a case of regularisation from the date of eligibility for absorption of an employee in the sense in terms of the Board's order. The claim of both, employers and the employee pivots only on the point whether the concerned workman had completed three years continuous service on the relevant date. Board order is on record and is not a document which was or could be weeded out. 15. The counsel for the Petitioner informs this Court that the recovery has already been made by the workman regarding benefit with regard to regularisation with effect from 1.4.1969 in terms of the award dated 12.10.1971. 16. It is not in every case that long delay becomes fatal. The delay in the present case is of such a nature that it would not be fatal to the case of the workman as only a declaration was sought regarding the date of his regularisation and the benefits accruing therefrom and is clearly distinguishable from the case of Assistant Executive Engineer v. Shivalinga (supra), which has been relied upon by the counsel for the Petitioner. In this view of the matter the contention of the counsel for the Petitioner that any delay in the instant case is fatal, is not acceptable. 17. No other point has been argued by the counsel for the Petitioner. 18. In view of the above, there is no illegality in the impugned award of the labour court. This Court is not inclined to disturb the findings in the award of the labour court as it cannot be said that they are perverse or against the record. It is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.