Judgment :- 1. In this Writ Petition, Court has called upon to decide correctness of the Award passed by the Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.658/1991 ordering reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent nearly 30 years after he left his service. 2. Case of the 2nd Respondent is that he was appointed as Electrician in 1956 in Madras State Transport Department which is later named as State Transport Corporation and again converted into Thiruvalluvar Transport Corporation. Subsequently, 2nd Respondent was promoted as Gr.I Electrician and was transferred to Coimbatore Depot. Case of the 2nd Respondent is that being Asthmatic patient, he fell ill and was bed-ridden for about three months. 3. Further case of the 2nd Respondent is that when he was fit for duty, he has submitted medical certificate along with his application for re-joining the duty and there was no response from the Corporation. Nearly 27 years thereafter, 2nd Respondent has raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.658/1991. 4. The same was resisted by the Corporation contending that 2nd Respondent was not an employee of Petitioner-Corporation and there was no employer – employee relationship and that 2nd Respondent has not been transferred to Petitioner-Corporation at the time of its formation in 1980. 5. Observing that 2nd Respondent has proved that he served in the Corporation as Gr.I Electrician and was not provided with employment from 7. 1964 and that it would amount to illegal termination of the 2nd Respondent, Labour Court has passed an order notionally reinstating the 2nd Respondent along with back wages and attendant benefits for the period from 7. 1964 to 29. 1996. 6. Challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Mr. V.R.Kamalanathan, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner-Corporation contended that it is the case of non-application of mind and Labour Court grossly erred in ordering reinstatement nearly after 30 years. It was further submitted that Ex.W1 letter dated 18. 1962 would not in any way establish the employer-employee relationship and the order of Labour Court being perverse is liable to be set aside. 6A. On behalf of Third Respondent, heard Mr.N.Senthilkumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader. 7. Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that question of maintainability and laches have never been raised before the Labour Court and it is not open to the Petitioner-Corporation to raise the points. 6A. On behalf of Third Respondent, heard Mr.N.Senthilkumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader. 7. Mr. W.M.Abdul Majeed, learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submitted that question of maintainability and laches have never been raised before the Labour Court and it is not open to the Petitioner-Corporation to raise the points. Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent further submitted that despite opportunities being given to the Petitioner-Corporation, Writ Petitioner had not chosen to produce any documents to show that 2nd Respondent had not worked with the Corporation. It was further argued that 2nd Respondent being aged more than 75 years, technical plea of delay and laches cannot be put against him. 8. Second Respondent was appointed in the year 1956 as Gr.II Electrician in Madras State Transport Department which was later re-renamed as State Transport Corporation. 2nd Respondent is said to have been promoted as Electrician Gr.I and was transferred to Coimbatore. 2nd Respondent is said to have been applied for medical leave from 7. 1964 to 010. 1964. Thereafter, 2nd Respondent is said to have given medical fitness certificate and expressing his willingness to join. According to the 2nd Respondent, there was no response from the Petitioner-Corporation. Strangely, thereafter, 2nd Respondent had not taken any steps for nearly three decades. 9. Nearly after 27 years, 2nd Respondent had raised Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.658/1991. Absolutely, no document had been produced to show his continuance in service. 2nd Respondent has filed Ex.W1 dated 18. 1962 – copy of letter written by the Labour Officer to the Dean KMC Hospital, Madras-10. Ex.W2 (05. 1963) is the copy of receipt for giving subscription to the State Transport Employees Union by the 2nd Respondent. Apart from the above slender evidence, Petitioner has not produced any other evidence to show his continued employment in the State Transport Corporation after 1964. 10. Labour Court has proceeded to observe that the Transport Corporation had not produced document to show employment of the 2nd Respondent. Had the 2nd Respondent approached the Court in 1964, Transport Corporation would have file the documents. In the Industrial Dispute raised nearly after three decades, Transport Corporation cannot be expected to produce all the documents. 11. According to the 2nd Respondent even in 1964, there was no response from the department. Even at that time 2nd Respondent was well aware as to the rights to raise Industrial Dispute. In the Industrial Dispute raised nearly after three decades, Transport Corporation cannot be expected to produce all the documents. 11. According to the 2nd Respondent even in 1964, there was no response from the department. Even at that time 2nd Respondent was well aware as to the rights to raise Industrial Dispute. Surprisingly, over long number of years, 2nd Respondent has raised Industrial Dispute. Had he not been employed elsewhere, certainly, 2nd Respondent would have raised the Industrial Dispute. .12. Question of acquiescence is essentially a question of fact which has to be decided on proper materials before the Court. In the present case, facts and materials are writ large. On the face of it, 2nd Respondent has acquiesced in the act of the Writ Petitioner and has waived his right. 2nd Respondent ought to have proved that he was continued to be employed after 1964. In the absence of any materials, State Transport Corporation cannot be faulted for not producing the evidence. 13. As pointed out earlier, there is an inordinate delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. Power under Sec.11-A of Industrial Dispute Act is not Omnibus to order reinstatement with back wages. 14. Labour Court failed to take note of inordinate delay and unexplained delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. When the Award of Labour Court stands vitiated by certain fundamental flaws and based on no evidence, exercising powers under Art. 226 of Constitution, High Court would certainly interfere with the Award passed by the Labour Court. The Award passed by the Labour Court, Chennai suffers from perversity of approach and unsustainable. 15. Though, the impugned award in I.D.No.658/1991 dated 20.6.2003 is liable to be set aside, the fact remains that the 2nd Respondent had worked with the State Transport Corporation from 1956 to 1964. The Third Respondent/State Government has not filed any counter denying the same. Further, Third Respondent has not denied that the 2nd Respondent was employed with the State Transport Corporation for a period of about eight years. In such circumstances, the Third Respondent/State Government is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-in one lumpsum in lieu of 2nd Respondents benefits to be paid for the period, during which he served viz., from 1956 to 1964. 116. In the result, --the impugned Award in I.D.No.658/1991 dated 20.6.2003 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. In such circumstances, the Third Respondent/State Government is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-in one lumpsum in lieu of 2nd Respondents benefits to be paid for the period, during which he served viz., from 1956 to 1964. 116. In the result, --the impugned Award in I.D.No.658/1991 dated 20.6.2003 is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. --For the reasons stated in Paragraph 15, the Third Respondent/State Government shall pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) in one lumpsum in lieu of 2nd Respondents benefits to be paid for the period, during which he served viz., from 1956 to 1964. As per the interim direction, the Writ Petitioner/Transport Corporation has deposited the amount in I.D.No.658/1991 on the file of I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Writ Petitioner/Transport Corporation is permitted to withdraw the same.