JUDGMENT: 1. The petition challenges the order passed by the Labour Court on 22.1.1993. By that order, the Labour Court had allowed the reference and granted the respondent No.2 reinstatement in service with continuity. As regards back wages, the Labour Court had directed the petitioners to pay the workman back wages from 20.6.1985 to 31.12.1987 and thereafter from 1.1.1990 till the date of the award. 2. The respondent No.1 workman was employed as a Conductor with the petitioner. On 26.12.1984 when his bus was checked, it was found that he had excess cash with him. Two passengers had alighted from the bus without tickets. A charge-sheet was issued to him and an enquiry was held. A notice was also issued to him requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. As the respondent workman’s reply was not found to be satisfactory, he was dismissed from service on 18.6.1985. An industrial dispute was raised by the respondent workman. The conciliation proceedings commenced and a failure report was submitted. Thereafter a reference was made for adjudication before the Labour Court and it registered as Reference (IDA) No.95 of 1988. 3. It appears that for four years the petitioner did not bother to file his statement of claim. He filed it only on 20.11.1992. After pleadings were complete, the reference was heard by the Labour Court. The Labour Court by its award has held that the findings of the enquiry officer are bogus and further held that the misconduct was not proved against the respondent workman. Apart from this, the Labour Court has held that assuming the misconduct had been proved, the punishment meted out to the workman was too harsh and not commensurate with the misconduct. The Labour Court therefore granted reinstatement with continuity of service. As regards back wages, the Labour Court has held that although there was a delay of four years on the part of the workman in filing his statement of claim, the back wages for the period from 1.1.1988 to 31.12.1989 should not be paid. The Labour Court was of the view that the deprival of back wages payable for two years was sufficient to ensure that justice is done to the parties. 4. In my opinion, this finding of the Labour Court cannot be accepted. The Labour Court was of the view that the deprival of back wages payable for two years was sufficient to ensure that justice is done to the parties. 4. In my opinion, this finding of the Labour Court cannot be accepted. The Labour Court having observed that there has been a delay of four years in filing the statement of claim, ought not to have granted back wages for those four years. There is nothing on record to indicate that the delay in filing the statement of claim was justified or that there were some special reasons which prevented the workman from filing the statement of claim immediately after he received notice from the Court. In these circumstances, the Labour Court has erred in awarding back wages for two years when the statement of claim had not been filed. 5. There is no dispute that the workman has been reinstated as rule was issued and the interim relief which was granted was limited to staying the back wages. 6. In my view, therefore, the Award of the Labour Court must be modified to the following extent:- (i) The workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. He shall be entitled to increments, etc. as the Labour Court has awarded him continuity of service by granting reinstatement. (ii) The workman shall not be entitled to back wages for the period from 11.7.1988 to 20.11.1992 as he had not filed the statement of claim during this period. (iii) The respondent workman will be entitled toback wages from 21.11.1992 upto the date he was reinstated in service. (iv) The back wages shall be paid to the respondent workman within a period of 12 weeks from today. 7. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.