ORAL JUDGMENT JUDGMENT: 1. The petition challenges award of the Labour Court dated 3.8.1995. The Labour Court has allowed the Reference (IDA) No. 241 of 1992 partly. However, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service. The Labour Court has awarded back wages from 11.6.1985 to 18.2.1986. 2. The undisputed facts are that, the petitioner joined services with the respondent No.1 on 21.2.1985. It appears that the petitioner was unwell and was under medical treatment for about five months. When he reported for duty after enjoying the leave on 11.6.1985, the petitioner was not permitted to resume duty. His services were terminated on 18.2.1986 with retrospective effect from 11.6.1985. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to respondent No.1, the first one in 1986 and one in each year thereafter upto 1989. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute on 26.7.1990. It was referred for adjudication on 17.7.1992. Pleadings were completed by the parties. The petitioner examined himself and the respondent No.1 led evidence of one V.N.Kshirsagar before the Labour Court. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court has held that the respondent No.1 had committed an illegality by terminating the services of the petitioner with retrospective effect. The Labour Court however was of the view that since the petitioner had worked only for three and half months with the respondent No.1, he was not entitled to be reinstated in service though the termination of service was illegal. The Labour Court has further granted the petitioner wages from 11.6.1985 i.e. the date on which the respondent No.1 claims to have terminated the services of the petitioner till 18.2.1986 i.e. the date of termination. 3. Mr.Kulkarni for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court has erred in not granting reinstatement to the petitioner after concluding that the termination of service was illegal. He submits that once the Labour Court had found that the termination of service was illegal, he ought to have directed the respondent No.1 to reinstate the workman. He further submits that in any event the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages to the petitioner. The only reason for not granting either reinstatement or back wages, is that the Labour Court was of the opinion that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly by the workman. He further submits that in any event the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages to the petitioner. The only reason for not granting either reinstatement or back wages, is that the Labour Court was of the opinion that the industrial dispute was raised belatedly by the workman. According to the learned advocate, the Labour Court ought to have granted back wages at least from the date the dispute was referred for adjudication till the Labour Court decided the reference. 4. The respondent No.1 contested the reference by contending in its written statement that the petitioner had abandoned his services from 11.6.1985. It has further pleaded that no medical certificate whatsoever was produced by the petitioner at any point of time to explain his absence. Although a letter was issued to the petitioner on 3.7.1985 to report for duty, he failed to obey the order. It has further contended that a show cause notice was issued on 27.1.1986 that the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. The respondents have also pointed out that the petitioner had worked only for 105 days and, that he had been appointed on a temporary basis. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner did not deserve the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. 5. In his evidence, the petitioner has deposed that he was in the employment with the Government of Maharashtra, Leprosy Department as a Leprosy Technician prior to his service with the respondents. However, there is no documentary evidence on record to substantiate this fact. The petitioner has admitted that he was given employment with the respondent No.1 as a special case after relaxing the age limit. The petitioner has then admitted that he was in service only for 105 days with respondent No.1. There is no material on record to indicate that his services with the Pune District Leprosy Committee were amalgamated with his services with the respondent No.1. Thus, the petitioner has worked only for three months with the respondent No.1. 6. There is no explanation whatsoever on record as to why there was a delay of 5 years on the part of the petitioner in raising an industrial dispute after the termination of his service in 1986. Thus, the petitioner has worked only for three months with the respondent No.1. 6. There is no explanation whatsoever on record as to why there was a delay of 5 years on the part of the petitioner in raising an industrial dispute after the termination of his service in 1986. Merely by contending that representations were being made to the respondent, would not absolve the petitioner of approaching the Court after an inordinate delay. 7. The Labour Court has considered all the necessary pleadings and evidence of the parties on record and has concluded that reinstatement would not be the proper relief for the petitioner. I see no reason to take a different view in the matter. The Labour Court has given cogent reasons for refusing to reinstate the workman who has admittedly worked only for 105 days. 8. In these circumstances, the award of the Labour Court cannot be faulted. 9. Writ petition dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.