JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner against award dated 18.4.2011, whereby an industrial dispute referred to Labour Court, Bharatpur, by appropriate Government on 31.3.2005, was answered against the workman. The terms of reference included the questions (i) whether raising of the dispute of removal from service by the workman with delay of 15 years is justified, (ii) whether during the period of service from 1.5.1986 to 31.8.1988, the workman has completed 240 days in any calender year and (iii) whether removal of petitioner?workman from service by respondent?Assistant Engineer on 31.8.1988 was legal and valid and if not what relief was workman entitled to. 2. For delay, Labour Court has held that petitioner has not given justified reasons for delay of 15 years in raising the dispute. The Labour Court relying on the judgement of Supreme Court in C.E. Ranjeet Singh Dham v. Shyam Lal, 2006 (4) RLW page 317 has held that in a case where dispute is raised after enormous delay, the Court can decline to grant any relief as no dispute can be said to alive after such a lapse of time. 3. Apart from delay, the Labour Court has analysed the evidence and has recorded a categorical finding that even otherwise petitioner has failed to prove his working of 240 days in the preceding calendar year. It was held that the burden of proof was on the workman that he worked for 240 days in a calender year and on mere statement of the workman, it cannot be proved. It was held that workman has failed to adduce evidence in his favour despite several opportunities, lastly on 13.1.2011 and thereafter on payment of Rs. 200 on 1.3.2011. Thus there was no breach of provisions of Section 25?F, 25?G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court has relied on the judgements of Supreme Court in Surendra Nagar District Panchayat & Anr. v. Jetha Bhai Pitamber Bhai, 2006 SC page 250 , Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board v. Hariram, 2004 (4) LLN page 839 , Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd., 1981 (2) LLN page 23 , Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Shri Niwas, 2004 (4) LLN page 785 , Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Rajasthan State, 2004 (4) LLN page 845 and Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani, 2002 (11) LLN page 391 . 4. 4. Having perused the contents of writ petition and the impugned award, I am of the opinion that delay of 24 years is enormous in the present matter. The Labour Court cannot be said to have erred in law in holding that the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief because he raised the dispute with delay of 24 years. 5. The Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Prahlad Singh (2001) 1 SCC 424 in para 12 and 13 has held as under:? "Whether relief can be declined on the ground of delay and laches, depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In this case claim was made almost after a period of 13 years without any reasonable or justifying ground and there was nothing on record to explain this delay as held by the Tribunal. When the respondent did not make claim for 13 years without any justification and on merits also he had no case, the Tribunal did not rightly grant him any relief. Even otherwise the 4 findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal in the light of the Standing Orders aforementioned cannot be said to be untenable or perverse. Thus we find merit in the appeal. Hence it is allowed for the reasons stated above. The order of the learned single Judge and that of the Division Bench affirming the same impugned in this appeal are set aside and the award of the Tribunal is restored. Parties to bear their own costs in this appeal." 6. The Supreme Court in Sapan Kumar Pandit v. U.P. State Electricity Board and Others, (2001) 6 SCC 222 , made certain useful observation in para 15, which may be of relevance for deciding the present cases. It read as under:? "15. There are cases in which lapse of time had caused fading or even eclipse of the dispute. If nobody had kept the dispute alive during the long interval it is reasonably possible to conclude in a particular case that the dispute ceased to exist after some time. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanised by the workmen or the Union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. But when the dispute remained alive though not galvanised by the workmen or the Union on account of other justified reasons it does not cause the dispute to wane into total eclipse. In this case when the Government have chosen to refer the dispute for adjudication under Section 4K of the U.P. Act the High Court should not have quashed the reference merely on the ground of delay. Of course, the long delay for making the adjudication could be considered by the adjudicating authorities while moulding its reliefs. That is a different matter altogether. The High Court has obviously gone wrong in axing down the order of reference made by the Government for adjudication. Let the adjudicatory process reach its legal culmination." In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned award. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******