ORDER : D. Murugesan, J.—The second respondent while working as durwan in the petitioner's stockyard at Peelamedu abused the watchman along with another employee by name Rangaraju. Both the second respondent and the said Rangaraju were dismissed from service as early in the year 1988. The said Rangaraju raised a dispute somewhere in the year 1990. The Labour Court awarded a penalty of cut in the increment. When the said award was challenged in W.P. 1 No. 12244/1993, this Court by order, dated August 24, 2001, directed the reinstatement of the said employee with a sum of Rs. 25,000/-representing 25 per cent of the back-wages. Aggrieved by the said order, the management, namely, the petitioner herein, preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 2284 of 2001 and a Division Bench of this Court by order, dated April 9, 2003, dismissed the said appeal. In so far as the order of reinstatement with back wages at 25 per cent in respect of Rangaraju has become final. 2. It is not in dispute that the second respondent is also similarly placed to that of, Rangaraju. The only difference is the second respondent was not diligent in raising the dispute immediately after the order of dismissal as was done by the said Rangaraju. As the second respondent raised the dispute only on October 22, 1993, nearly after five years, the Labour Court while ordering reinstatement, refused to direct the back wages for the period upto October 22, 1993. The Labour Court, had awarded 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of dispute till the date of the award namely December 9, 1994. This award is challenged by the management-Steel Authority of India, Ltd., in this writ petition. 3. Though Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned senior counsel for S. Ramasubramaniam Associates, counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Labour Court ought not to have passed an order of reinstatement since the second respondent has raised the dispute with the delay of five years, I am not inclined to accept the said submission as it has been held by the Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1351 , even in case of delay in raising a dispute, for the good and sufficient reasons the Labour Court is entitled to consider the dispute on merits and mould the relief. The Sirhind Co-Operative Marketing Cum-Processing Service Society Limited and Another, AIR 1999 SC 1351 , even in case of delay in raising a dispute, for the good and sufficient reasons the Labour Court is entitled to consider the dispute on merits and mould the relief. The relevant paragraph of the judgment reads as under at p. 1264 of LLJ: "10. It follows, therefore, that the provisions of Article 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 workman merely on the ground of delay. The plea of delay if raised by the employer 5 is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence. No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. 1C Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the Tribunal, Labour Court or board, dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back- wages to the workman till the 15 date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/termination or dismissal. The Court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages......" 4. The question of challenge to the reinstatement also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the Division Bench in the case of Rangaraju has factually found that the said employees were not under the influence of alcohol. Going by the charge of mere abuse of a watchman, the order of reinstatement has to be sustained. Accordingly, the award insofar as the order of reinstatement cannot be assailed. 5. However, Sri Sanjay Mohan, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would further contend that even in case of Rangaraju who was diligent in raising the dispute in a period of two years, the Court while modifying the award by directing the reinstatement, awarded only 25 per cent of the back wages to be paid to him. However, in the case of the second respondent who was not diligent in raising the dispute for over a period of five years, 50 per cent of the back wages is directed to be paid. However, in the case of the second respondent who was not diligent in raising the dispute for over a period of five years, 50 per cent of the back wages is directed to be paid. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the second respondent is not entitled to the payment of 50 per cent of the back wages. He would submit that the second respondent is being paid salary u/s 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, till now. Hence, the learned senior counsel submitted that the award in respect of payment of 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of dispute is liable to be set aside. 6. However, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the first respondent accepting the explanation offered by the second respondent as to the delay in filing the dispute and also his personal domestic problems, by condoning the delay had resorted to decide the dispute on merits. In view of the delay in raising the dispute, the Labour Court in fact declined the back wages for a period of five years. Hence, the award of 50 per cent of back wages need not be interfered. 7. I have given my consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the second respondent. In the case of Sri Rangaraju who stands on better footing than the second respondent in approaching the Court with the grievance against the order of dismissal is awarded only 25 per cent of back wages. The second respondent who was not diligent in raising the dispute as was done by Rangaraju and raised a dispute after a period of five years from the date of dismissal, is nowhere placed in better position. 8. Hence, I am of the view that the same order which has been passed by the learned single Judge of this Court as confirmed by the Division Bench in directing only 25 per cent of the back wages to the said Rangaraju, can be ordered in this case also. Accordingly, the award of the Labour Court in directing 50 per cent of the back wages is modified to only 25 per cent. 9. With this modification in regard to back wages only, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.