ORDER 1. In keeping with the direction given on the last occasion, the records of Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 at Dhanbad in Reference No. 91 of 1993 have been made available. From the said records it appears that some evidence was led on behalf of the workmen-respondents. It also appears that apart from taking a point of limitation, the appellant did not choose to press the other points, said to have been taken in their written statement before the learned Tribunal. Be that as it may, as will appear from the award of the learned Tribunal which was under challenge before the learned Single Judge, eight other similarly situated employees were given the benefit of reinstatement with full back wages by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna upon holding that the termination of their services was made without giving any reason. The learned Tribunal, in the instant case, upon taking note of the said decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna, and upon holding that the delay in making of the reference was not fatal, came to a finding that the respondents-workmen were also entitled to be reinstated with back wages but not from the date of termination of their service but from the date of reference i.e. 23rd August, 1993. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, submissions, other than those relating to limitation, were attempted to be made on behalf of the appellant-petitioner but the learned Single Judge disallowed the same upon holding that since such submissions had not been made before the learned Tribunal, the Management was no longer entitled to raise the same while challenging the award. The learned Single Judge thereupon dismissed the writ application upholding the award as passed by the learned Tribunal. 3. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and award of the learned Single Judge. 4. Mr. Pradip Modi, appearing in support of the appeal, tried to impress upon us that the reference had been made after a long delay of 13 years and during the said period it must be deemed that the right, if any, of the workmen stood extinguished as was sought to be explained by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of, India and Ors., . Mr. v. Union of, India and Ors., . Mr. Modi also sought to urge that the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been complied with by the workmen. Mr. Modi urged that the Supreme Court has also held that in all cases of violation of Section 25-F of the said Act, reinstatement was not to be directed as a matter of course but would depend upon the facts of each case. 5. Mr. Modi submitted that the learned Single Judge should have taken note of the aforesaid submissions and should have allowed the writ application. While concluding, Mr. Modi, however, made an alternative submission that in the event the Court was inclined to allow the reinstatement of the workmen-respondents to remain, the question of back wages as allowed by the learned Tribunal should be reconsidered having regard to the fact of long delay in the reference being made and also on account of the fact that during the entire period, the workmen had not performed any work. 6. The appeal was strongly opposed by Mr. M.M. Prasad who urged that the learned Single Judge had rightly noticed the fact that the submissions being made on behalf of the appellant had not been before the Tribunal. Mr. Prasad reiterated his said submission as far as the instant appeal is concerned. According to Mr. Prasad, the appellant should not be allowed to raise all the questions now being sought to be urged since they had not been raised before the learned Tribunal. Mr. Prasad laid special stress on the fact that eight similarly placed workmen had obtained relief from the Central Administrative Tribunal at Patna and it would amount to injustice if the present workmen, who were similarly situated, were denied the same relief. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the respective parties, we are not inclined to allow Mr. Modi to raise new questions at the stage of appeal which had not been raised before the Tribunal. We are, however, inclined to agree with Mr. Modis submission that notwithstanding the direction of reinstatement, there had been considerable delay in the reference being made. In fact, while the services of the workmen were terminated in 1979, the reference was made in the year 1993 and the award was ultimately made in 2001. 8. We are, however, inclined to agree with Mr. Modis submission that notwithstanding the direction of reinstatement, there had been considerable delay in the reference being made. In fact, while the services of the workmen were terminated in 1979, the reference was made in the year 1993 and the award was ultimately made in 2001. 8. In such circumstances, while we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge regarding reinstatement of the workmen- respondent, at the same time, we are of the view that the direction given by the learned Tribunal as also the learned Single Judge that such back wages would be available to the workmen from the date of reference i.e. 23rd August, 1993, should be modified and, accordingly, we direct that the respondents-workmen would be entitled to such back wages from the date of the award. 9. The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. There will be no order as to costs.