Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of award dated 19.7.2006, Annexure P.1 reinstating respondent No. 2 workman into service with back wages. 2. The dispute raised by the workman was that he was employed as Chowkidar-cum-Peon on daily wages by the petitioner Bank in the Year 1972 and his services were regularised on 29.3.1975 as Peon cum-Guard against a regular post. He was, thereafter promoted as Peon-cum-Daftri and he also performed duty of Cashier/Clerk during peak hours of terrorism. His wife became patient of mental depression and his children were handicapped. His mother also suffered stomach problem. He applied for leave and also sought extension of leave. He reported for duty but was not allowed for serve for want of certificate from Civil Surgeon, Hissar. Thereafter, his services were terminated without enquiry in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 (in short, `the Act). 3. The management opposed the claim, inter-alia on the plea that the dispute was raised alter 10 years from the date of occurrence i.e. 1 2.9.1994 after which the petitioner never served. Reliance was placed on judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Nedungadi Bank Limited v. KP Madhavankutty. (2000)2 SCC 455; 2000(1) SLR 636 (SC]. The workman had voluntarily left service. No enquiry was, thus, required. 4. The Labour Court held that the workman was disengaged from service from 24.4.1993 but since principles of natural justice were not complied with, the termination was illegal. The reference having been made, question of delay was not relevant. Reliance was also placed on judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperation Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Limited and others, AIR 1999 SC 1351 and DK Yadav v. JMA Industries Limited, (1993)3 SCC 259 : [1993(4) SLR 126 (SC]. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Admittedly, the dispute was raised by the workman for the first time by demand notice dated 16.10.2002, though he never worked after 1994. No reason whatsoever has been shown as to why even demand notice could not be served for eight years after the workman had ceased to receive any salary. On this short ground, the impugned award cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the judgment in Ajjaib Singh (supra) relied upon in the award, the said judgment was explained in subsequent judgements in Haryana State Coop. On this short ground, the impugned award cannot be sustained. 7. As regards the judgment in Ajjaib Singh (supra) relied upon in the award, the said judgment was explained in subsequent judgements in Haryana State Coop. Land Development Bank v. Neelam, AIR 2005 SC 1843 : [2005(2) SLR 784 (SC] and Nedungadi Bank (supra) and it was held that reference of such a highly belated dispute could not be justified even if there was no limitation laid down. However, we are of the view that the workman should not be deprived of the terminal benefits accrued till the date of termination of service i.e. 24.4.1993. 8. As regards requirement of holding enquiry, the workman having admittedly not taken any step from 1994 to 2002, cannot claim any equity and mere absence of enquiry in such a situation would be of no consequence. Reference may be made to the law down by the Honble Supreme Court in Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, AIR 2000 SC 2783 : [2000(5) SLR 67 (SC], Mithilesh Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 2003 SC 1724 :[2003(2) SLR 620 (SC], State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, (2005)12 SCC 182 : [2005(4) SLR 683 (SC] and State of Rajasthan v. Mohammed Ayub Naz, AIR 2006 SC 856 : [2006(1) SLR 832 (SC]. 9. Accordingly, we allow this petition and direct that the impugned award be substituted by terminal benefits by treating the workman to have retired on the date of the order of termination.