Order This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 25.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 922/2007 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant-management of Department of Tele Communication, Post & Telegraph, Electrical Division, Ranchi challenging the award passed in favour of the respondent-workman for his reinstatement but without back wages was dismissed. 2. The case of the appellant-management before the learned Single Judge as also before this Court is that the respondent-workman had already filed a writ petition earlier challenging his termination and the said writ petition had been dismissed as the respondent-workman herein had failed to produce the letter of appointment. The respondent-workman thereafter succeeded in getting a reference initiated for challenging his termination and the Tribunal finally, after critical appreciation of evidence on record, was pleased to hold that the termination of the respondent-workman was contrary to the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and hence it was ordered that he should be reinstated in service. The Tribunal however, refused to grant any back wages to the respondent-workman against which he has not preferred any appeal. 3. The appellant-management however, has challenged the award passed by the Tribunal as also the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the award and has contended that the respondent-workman had already filed the writ petition earlier challenging his termination and, therefore, the reference itself was barred by the principle of res judicata. 4. Undoubtedly, his objection could be treated as a preliminary objection which ought to have been raised by the management at the threshold when reference was initiated! or the management could have assailed the order by which the State Government finally passed an order initiating reference. But the management never challenged the order of initiation of reference. On the contrary, it participated in the same before the Tribunal and the matter was finally adjudicated on merit. Therefore, at the stage of appeal, it is not open for the management to raise a preliminary objection to the effect that initiation of reference itself was affected by the principle of res judicata and hence, we deem it appropriate to reject this contention of the management. 5. Therefore, at the stage of appeal, it is not open for the management to raise a preliminary objection to the effect that initiation of reference itself was affected by the principle of res judicata and hence, we deem it appropriate to reject this contention of the management. 5. The counsel for the appellant-management thereafter contended that the reference ought to have been rejected on the ground of unusual delay and laches and in support of the same, he has placed reliance on the judgment and order of the Supreme. Court reported in (2006)6 SCC 221 , Reserve Bank of India vs. Gopinath Sharma and Another). 6. It is no doubt true that if a reference is initiated after an unusually long delay, the same can be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, as was the view taken by the Apex Court in the judgment and order referred to here-in-before. But, in the instant matter, no back wage was granted to the respondent-workman and merely the award of reinstatement has been passed which cannot be held to be prejudicial to the management on account of delay. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant management relates to a matter where the question of delay had been taken into consideration while considering the question of back wages and hence, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable from the facts existing in the instant case. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we see no reason to entertain this appeal. Consequently, we dismiss this appeal at the stage of admission itself.