JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant-Bank has challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 19.1.2010 dismissing the writ petition filed by the Bank. 3. The facts, in brief, are that the respondent was appointed as Mini Deposit Collector under the Scheme of the Bank vide order dated 09/05/1977 and his services came to be terminated on 03/07/1989. The workman-respondent challenged the termination alleging the same as violative of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and a reference on his application was made in 1999. The reference was answered in favour of the workman-respondent by the learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal [hereinafter referred to be as "CGIT"], who had directed that his termination was contrary to the provisions of Section 25F and as such, he would be liable to be reinstated in service with continuity of service, but without back wages. 4. The appellant-Bank challenged the award passed by the learned Tribunal before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The writ petition filed by the appellant against the award dated 08/02/2005 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 19/01/2010. Hence, this appeal. 5. In the appeal, the appellant has firstly contended that the dispute was raised by the respondent-workman after delay of more than 12/13 years from the date of his termination and therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in entertaining a belated reference and answering the reference in favour of the workman. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has rejected the aforesaid submission of the appellant in that behalf. So far as the aforesaid submission is concerned, we find from the judgment impugned that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein admittedly the respondent-workman submitted his representations and the final representation submitted by the respondent-workman against his illegal termination was rejected by the respondents only in 1999 and the learned Single Judge has taken note of this fact and held that it cannot be said in the light of the above that the dispute was raised with delay. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that the Tribunal while allowing the reference and answering the same in favour of the workman has not awarded any back wages to the workman-respondent on account of having challenged the termination after rejection of the representation in 1999. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. UP State Electricity Board, reported in 2001 LLR-900 and other judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf and relying upon the same has rejected the aforesaid contention of the appellant. 6. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant on account of this delay nor any unfair advantage to the workman of payment of dues for the period he did not work. The aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant on the ground of delay in raising the dispute is, accordingly, rejected. 7. Learned Counsel for the appellant next contended that in the instant case there is no question of reinstatement of the workman in view of the fact that no such post of Mini Deposit Collector is now available as the Scheme has been dis-continued and the learned Counsel sought to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this behalf in the case of A.P. Bank Deposit Collectors Association v. State Bank of India, (Transferred Case (C) No. 79 of 2005 decided on 28.08.2008 ]. 8. So far as the aforesaid contention is concerned, the learned Single Judge on the basis of material placed before the Court by the respondent-workman in the reply to the writ petition has come to the conclusion that the similarly situated workman as the present respondent who approached the Industrial Tribunal by raising a dispute against illegal termination and in whose favour the award was given by the Tribunal was reinstated by the appellant-Bank on the same post of Mini Deposit Collector and in this behalf taking note of the evidence with regard to Krishna Kumar Taneja in the form of Annexure-R1/4 which is available at Page No.138 of the paper book, the learned Single Judge held that the appellant was not entitled to discriminate between the employees similarly situated. For ready reference, Annexure-R1/4, upon which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge, is reproduced as under: " iatkc us'kuy cSad Punjab National Bank lanHkZ REF: fnukad Date : 1.4.2002 Jh d`".k dqekj rustk iq= Jh ds vkj rustk A-35 j.kthr uxj] Hkjriqj fo"k; % y|q tek ;kstuk vkidks mDr ;kstuk ds rgr ifCyd ls tek,sa izkIr djus gsrq vf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gS vki mDr ;kstuk ds vuqlkj tek laxzg.k djds 'kk[kk esa tek djok;saxsA ofj"B izcU/kd " 9. Thus, admittedly in the case of similarly situated persons who have been working as Mini Deposit Collector just like the respondent and who were terminated similarly as the respondent-workman and in whose favour the award was passed by the Tribunal, came to be reinstated by the appellant on the equivalent post and given the same nature of work which they were performing prior to their termination. The contention that was raised that the Scheme has been dis-continued in the year 1989, does not find support from the fact that vide Annexure-R1/4 Krishna Kumar Taneja was reinstated as late as on 01/04/2002. In the facts and circumstances, therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant challenging the decision of the learned Single Judge on this count has no merit and accordingly, rejected. No other ground was raised before us. 10. In the facts and circumstance, we find no merit in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the Special Appeal [Writ] No.271/2010 as well as the Stay Application No.565/2010, are dismissed.Special appeal dismissed. *******