JUDGMENT Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudhanshu Narain, the learned counsel for the respondent workman. 2. The petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court reinstating the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is, that the workman alleged that he was appointed on muster roll on a daily wage basis in November 1977 and that he had worked till 30.1.1979, and thereafter, his services was dispensed with. The workman further contended that at the time of the dispensation of his service, retrenchment compensation was not paid and since he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The workman contended that since the provision of retrenchment compensation had been violated by the employer, his dispensation of service was illegal, and therefore, he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service with full back wages. 3. The petitioners contended that the workman was not entitled for any relief since no industrial dispute existed nor such belated dispute could have been referred. The alleged dispensation of service was made in the year 1979, whereas the reference was raised and referred by the State Government in the year 1991. On merit, the employer contended that the workman was employed on muster roll on a daily wage basis on exigency of work and that he had worked intermittently and had never worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. The Labour Court, after considering the material evidence on record, found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, and that retrenchment compensation was not paid, and therefore, held that the order of dispensation was in violation of the provision of Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and that he was liable to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said award, have filed the present writ petition. 4. From a perusal of the order of the Conciliation Officer, it is clear that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to file objection with regard to the delay in raising the conciliation. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said award, have filed the present writ petition. 4. From a perusal of the order of the Conciliation Officer, it is clear that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioners to file objection with regard to the delay in raising the conciliation. The petitioners did not file any objection, and consequently, the Conciliation Officer condoned the delay in moving the reference. The State Government referred the dispute upon failure of the conciliation. The petitioners, now in a writ jurisdiction cannot turn around and allege that no industrial dispute existed or that old and stale dispute could not be raked up. This Court holds that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on the question of delay in raising the reference. 5. The Court also finds that the finding on the question that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year is based on appreciation of evidence and, this being a finding of fact, cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction. 6. The Labour Court found that the workman had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that he was paid Rs. 180 to Rs. 200 per month. This fact has not been denied categorically by the employer in the evidence led by the Junior Engineer. The employer had not placed any evidence, namely, the muster roll register, which would indicate the number of days which the workman had worked and the payment which were given to him. None of these documents were led or produced by the employer. Consequently, the Labour Court was justified in holding that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. This Court is of the opinion that the relief of reinstatement does not suffer from any error of law. However, this Court finds that the award of the Labour Court granting back wages was wholly arbitrary. Admittedly, the service of the workman was dispensed with on 3.1.1979. The dispute was referred in the year 1991. The payment of back wages for these 12 years should not be fastened upon the employer unnecessarily. However, this Court finds that the award of the Labour Court granting back wages was wholly arbitrary. Admittedly, the service of the workman was dispensed with on 3.1.1979. The dispute was referred in the year 1991. The payment of back wages for these 12 years should not be fastened upon the employer unnecessarily. The dispute was required to be raised within six months from the date of cause of action and even though, the Conciliation Officer had condoned the delay, it does not justify the Labour Court to grant the back wages for this period. Further, nothing has been indicated by the workman that he was not gainfully employed during the intervening period. This Court also finds that during the pendency of the writ petition, the workman was being paid wages in terms of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. 7. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that there had been a considerable delay in raising the dispute, this Court finds that the workman is not at all entitled for the back wages. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is partly allowed. The Award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman is not entitled for any back wages. However, the amount paid under Section 17-B of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act will not be recovered from the workman. ————