JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This appeal filed by the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd., is directed against the judgment dated 12th July, 2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 1116/2005 whereby he partly allowed the writ petition filed by the present Corporation but refused to set-aside the award of the Labour Court in totality. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent Ashok Kumar was employed with the Forest Corporation. His services were terminated w.e.f 20.9.88. Thereafter, the workman filed claim before the Labour Commissioner and since the matter could not be settled, the State Government made a reference to the Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal to decide following dispute: Whether the termination of the services of Sh. Ashok Kumar Sharma son of Sh. Vidhya Sagar Sharma by the Divisional Manager, Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Ltd. Him-Kanth Sale Depot, Manturwala (Poanta Sahib) Distt. Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh w.e.f 20.9.88 without complying the section 25-F/25-N of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits including back wages, seniority and amount of compensation Sh. Ashok Kumar is entitled to? 2. The Labour Court held the termination of the services of the respondent as illegal but since the workman had approached the State for relief very late, he was held entitled to back-wages only to the extent of 25% from the date of reference i.e from 21.5.2002. The Forest Corporation filed a writ petition challenging the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment up-held the award in so far as the findings on the question of the illegality of the termination of the services of the workman were concerned but held that the employee was not entitled to any back wages because of the fact that he had filed his claim after great delay. 3. Before us, the main contention raised by Mr. B.M Chauhan Advocate is that the Labour Court should have dismissed the claim of the workman as being time barred. We are unable to accept this contention. The Labour Court is bound to answer a reference made to it by the State and can not dismiss the reference on the ground of delay or laches. B.M Chauhan Advocate is that the Labour Court should have dismissed the claim of the workman as being time barred. We are unable to accept this contention. The Labour Court is bound to answer a reference made to it by the State and can not dismiss the reference on the ground of delay or laches. It may, however, taken into consideration the factor that the claim petition is delayed while moulding the relief to be granted. This was also done in the present case. 4. If the employer is aggrieved by the reference being made on the ground that it is belated and no dispute exists then remedy available to the employer is to challenge the order making the reference and if it does not challenge the said order, it can not in reference proceedings claim that the petition should be dismissed on the ground of limitation, delay or laches. 5. Pursuant to the orders of the Labour Court, the workman was reinstated in service and continues to serve the Corporation and it would be highly unjust to order his dis-engagement at this stage. Therefore, we find no merits in this appeal, which is accordingly rejected.