Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This petition was admitted on 25032008. The petition impugns the Award, dated 7.3.2006 passed in Reference (I.D.A.) No.38 of 1998 by the Labour Court, Wardha granting reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service. 3. The facts, briefly stated, are as under : The respondent claimed that he was employed by the petitioner with effect from 1st April, 1983 on Wardha Arvi Road and Kharangana –Khondali Road on monthly salary of Rs.407/-. It is claimed by the respondent that services of the respondent were illegally terminated on 21.4.1986 and the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, in exercise of power vested in him under clause (c) of sub section (1) of section 10 read with Section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, referred the dispute for adjudication. According to the petitioner, however, on 10.5.1998, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court. Statement of Claim was filed before the Labour Court. The petitioner had defended the Claim by filing written statement on 15.5.1999 contending that the reference was delayed by 12 years and may be dismissed on the sole count. On 7.3.2006, the Award was passed whereby the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service. Claim of back wages, however, was turned down. 4. The question raised is as to whether the Labour Court was justified to entertain the stale claim delayed by 12 years. Whether the Award was correct inasmuch as the Labour Court had put burden upon the employer to prove that the employee was engaged by them for the period of 240 days. 7. The Industrial Dispute Act do not prescribe the period of limitation for raising the dispute under the provisions of the Act, but it is essential that it must not end in inequitable results. It is open for the Labour Court to decline relief if workman has been negligent and cannot offer reasonable explanation for the delay caused in raising the dispute. Delay need to be satisfactorily explained by the workman, at whose instance the reference is made. If relief of reinstatement with full back wages is granted in favour of the dormant and lethargic workman who slept over his rights for a long time, it would result in miscarriage of justice. 8. Delay need to be satisfactorily explained by the workman, at whose instance the reference is made. If relief of reinstatement with full back wages is granted in favour of the dormant and lethargic workman who slept over his rights for a long time, it would result in miscarriage of justice. 8. In view of the ruling in the case of Mahavirsingh vs. State of U.P State Electricity Board & Others reported in 1999 (82) FLR 169, when termination of the workman is held illegal, the whole reference ought not to be rejected merely on the ground of delay, otherwise it would lead to inequitable result. Hence, the labour Court had granted the benefit of reinstatement to his former post with continuity of service. 9. In the facts and circumstances, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service is just and proper, as granted; while the claim of back wages was rightly refused. The impugned order is well reasoned and balanced one and need no interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is found to be without merits and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.