ORDER 1. Delay condoned. 2. Heard counsel for the parties. 3. Special leave granted. 4. A notice was issued to the respondent on the limited question as to whether the grant of full back wages was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The undisputed facts are that the respondent was employed on 29-6-1991 and that he continued to work till 31-12-1991. There is dispute as to the post he held and whether he worked continuously. We are not required to go into that question. 5. The respondent workman raised a demand under Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act for the first time before the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer on 14-10-1995 i.e. after a period of almost four years. The dispute was referred to the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Rohtak. By award dated 9-3-1999, the reference was answered in favour of the respondent workman and it was directed that the respondent be reinstated with continuity and full back wages. The aforesaid award was impugned before the High Court but the challenge was repelled by the impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 24-4-2002 in CWP No. 6325 of 2002. 6. It will appear from the facts stated above that though the respondent was prevented from working by the appellant Roadways after December 1991 he did not raise a dispute till 14-10-1995. It is settled law that the mere factum of delay in raising a dispute by itself does not bring the dispute to an end. The delay in raising the dispute, however, may be taken into account in the matter of grant of relief. 7. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the a case, we are satisfied that the award made by the Labour Court deserves to be modified to the extent that the respondent shall be entitled to back wages with effect from 14-10-1995, and not for the period prior to 14-10-1995 as awarded by the Labour Court. 8. This appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.