JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard Ms. Megha R. Chitalia on behalf of the petitioner. 2. In the present petition petitioner - employee has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference No. 1808 of 1995 dated 5.2.1999, granting reinstatement with continuity of service, without back wages of interim period. It is necessary to note that Labour Court has granted only reinstatement with continuity of service. There is no direction of denial of back wages. The learned advocate Ms. Megha R. Chitalia submitted that VRS was floated by the respondent but it was kept in abeyance and not implemented. In pursuance to that scheme, the employee concerned applied for resignation with a prayer to grant the benefit of VRS. The respondent - management has accepted the resignation only and there is no question of granting any benefit of VRS as scheme has not been implemented by the respondent. Ultimately in result of accepting the resignation, the service of the workman is terminated. Therefore, he raised industrial dispute before the Labour Court which is referred for adjudication on 17.7.1995. Before the Labour Court the whole question was examined on the light that whether the workman is entitled to the reinstatement or not. Ultimately the Labour Court has come to conclusion that management has not informed to the employee that VRS is not implemented. 3. The defence of employee is that in case if management has informed the workman then he may have withdrawn the resignation. This aspect has been examined on the basis of oral and documentary evidence. Ultimately the Labour Court has come to conclusion that respondent management has cheated the petitioner employee and therefore they should have to cancel the resignation and have to reinstate the workman with continuity of service. Before the Labour Court no discussion about the unemployment of the employee during the interim period. Whether the workman has deposed before the Labour Court that he remained unemployed during the interim period or not, there is no discussion in the award. Whether workman has not pressed for the relief of back wages or not, it is also not reflected from the award. In light of this material on record and discussion made by the Labour Court, Labour Court has ultimately granted reinstatement with continuity of service. This award is dated 5.2.1999. Whether workman has not pressed for the relief of back wages or not, it is also not reflected from the award. In light of this material on record and discussion made by the Labour Court, Labour Court has ultimately granted reinstatement with continuity of service. This award is dated 5.2.1999. The delay in filing the present petition is explained in paragraph 14, which is quoted as under: "14. The petitioner states that this petition is being filed long time after the judgment and Award was passed by Hon'ble Labour Court. However, the petitioner wants to justify this long period and submits that he has a constant feeling and experience that he is being treated differently and discriminatingly as he is a SC member. The respondent has promoted many juniors but not this petitioner. The respondent reinstated the petitioner from 1.6.99 though the Award of the Labour Court was made on 5.2.1999 and must have been published within one month from then. The petitioner is poor, helpless and now 53 years of age. The petitioner was feeling feared of the respondent and therefore he could not file this petition earlier, within reasonable time. However, finally, the petitioner approached the legal aid cell where is request has been accepted and this petition is being prepared and presented through an advocate of free legal aid. These facts and factors justify the delay caused in filing this petition. If delay is condoned, the respondent will not be put to any loss. If delay is condoned and this petition is heard, there will be possibility of the injustice done to this petitioner being removed." 4. The explanation which has been tendered by the employee - present petitioner cannot be considered to be a sufficient cause for not filing the petition after reinstatement for a period of 6 years. Merely petitioner is poor and helpless and aged about 53 years is no ground to condone the delay in filing the present petition. According to the petitioner he has been afraid of filing such petition after reinstatement, is also no ground to condone the delay. The question is that once the award passed by the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service, in pursuance to that employee is reinstated on 1.6.1999. The respondent management has accepted the award and not challenged to the higher forum. The question is that once the award passed by the Labour Court granting reinstatement with continuity of service, in pursuance to that employee is reinstated on 1.6.1999. The respondent management has accepted the award and not challenged to the higher forum. In such situation, subsequently writ petition filed by the employee for claiming the back wages of interim period after a period of six years, then such petition is not maintainable. That view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Sant Kumar Dwivedi v. Dhar Jila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit and Others, reported in (2001) 9 SCC 402 . The relevant discussion in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said decision is quoted as under: "2. The admitted facts are that the appellant was reinstated in service by order dated 12.5.1978 with a condition that he will not get any back wages. Obviously, earlier on 8.3.1976 his services were terminated but by the aforesaid order, he was reinstated without back wages. He accepted such reinstatement without back wages by his joining report, Annexure R-4 at p. 106 of the paper - book that he has joined his duty on 13.5.1978. By his own conduct, the appellant has accepted the correctness of the order of reinstatement without back wages. Under these circumstances, subsequent dispute raised by him regarding back wages was clearly not maintainable as held by this Court in State of Punjab v. Krishan Niwas. In view of the settled legal position, no interference is called for. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. 3. It is clarified that this order will not be treated to be resulting in any break in service of the appellant. He will be deprived of only the back wages. The continuity of service and all other notional benefits on that basis will be available to him. It appears that when the order of reinstatement was granted, except depriving him of back wages, it necessarily meant that the continuity of service was implicit in the reinstatement. Even Conditions 1 and 2 of the order of reinstatement clearly indicate that he is reinstated in service with continuity as pay scales and other benefits were also directed to be given." 5. Even Conditions 1 and 2 of the order of reinstatement clearly indicate that he is reinstated in service with continuity as pay scales and other benefits were also directed to be given." 5. The learned advocate relied upon one decision of Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Virender Kumar Goel and others, reported in (2004) (100) FLR 648 (SC) : 2004 (15) AIC 530 (SC). In the said decision the facts are different because application for voluntary retirement was submitted by the employee for acceptance of the management but before accepting such VRS the employee concerned has withdrawn the request during the currency of VRS. In that light of the facts Apex Court has taken decision. This fact is not before this Court in the present case, therefore, this decision is not applicable. 6. In respect to the question of delay in filing the present petition after period of six years cannot be entertained. That aspect has been examined by this Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod,J) in Special Civil Application No. 8010 of 2006 - Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Baldevji Mohanji Solanki, Special Civil Application No. 8011 of 2006 - Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. v. Khimjibhai Kanjibhai Prajapati and Special Civil Application No. 8014 of 2006 - Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation Ltd. v. Kalusingh Kesharsingh Vaghela, decided on 18.04.2006. The said question has also been examined in the case of; (i) Sukhjinder Singh v. Director, State Transport, Punjab, Chandigarh and others, 1999 (3) LLJ (Supp.), page 1022. (ii)State of Punjab and others v. Sukhdev Singh, 1999 (3) LLJ (Supp.), 1443. (iii) Dhirajbhai Thakorebhai Patel and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat and others, 1989 (2) GLH 133 . 7. Therefore, considering the entire facts of the matter and the employee is working with the respondent, according to my opinion such decision cannot be entertained for claiming of only back wages of interim period. Therefore, there is no substance in the present petition, accordingly, present petition is dismissed.