Judgment 1. Heard the submissions at the Bar. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Award dt.14.8.2003 passed by the First Labour Court Nagpur in Reference I.D.A. Case No. 143 of 1998. Reference was made as to whether the petitioner had terminated the services of the respondent/employee namely Sudhakar Narayanrao Mendhe illegally with effect from 20.5.1989 and by adopting unfair labour practices. It was answered in the affirmative and the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the respondent to the former post with continuity of service with effect from 20.8.1989. 3. The case of the respondent was that he was employed as a 'Majdoor' with effect from 21.4.1987 at Wardha in Sub-Division No.1 in the building and road works under the supervision of Sub-Division no.1 at the monthly salary of Rs.407/- on the monthly nominal muster rolls during the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily and has worked for continuously more than 240 days in each year of the completed service. The respondent claimed that he had performed his duties satisfactorily without any complaint and his service record was unblemished and clean. The respondent contended that, after his termination, he had requested the petitioner/employer to reinstate him, but despite service of the demand notice, dt.14.1.1998, there was no reinstatement. The dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer but the Conciliation proceeding has failed. 4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour had, in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 10(1), Clause (c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred dispute for adjudication. The respondent contended that his services were terminated without any valid reason orally with effect from 20.5.1989. The petitioner contended that the respondent had approached the petitioner by notice dt.14.1.1998 after a period of 10 years and after a long delay without sufficient reason. Service record of the respondent a casual labourer since prior to more than five years was not retained by the employer in view of the standing instruction S. No.272 of Public Works Manual. There was prohibition of employment of daily wage employee in the year 1987. The learned Labour Court did not consider delay before reinstating the respondent with continuity of service. 5. The question raised is as to whether the Labour Court was justified to entertain the stale claim delayed by 10 years. There was prohibition of employment of daily wage employee in the year 1987. The learned Labour Court did not consider delay before reinstating the respondent with continuity of service. 5. The question raised is as to whether the Labour Court was justified to entertain the stale claim delayed by 10 years. Whether the Award was correct inasmuch as the Labour Court had put the burden upon the employer to prove that the employee was engaged by them for the period of 240 days. 6. According to the respondent, his services were illegally terminated by the oral order and though he had completed continuous service for 240 days, he was not paid one month salary or pay in lieu of that. Thus, Section 25–F of the Industrial Disputes Act was contravened. Respondent, therefore claimed reinstatement with full back wages. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that manual record of casual labourers is not retained beyond period of 5 years and therefore, it is difficult for the petitioner to verify the claim of the respondent/employee. 7. The Labour Court has held that the act of termination of the respondent’s services was illegal and granted the benefit of reinstatement to the respondent to the former post with continuity of service. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that reference was made after unexplained long delay of 10 years and the Labour Court has erred to entertain the stale claim. The petitioner has failed to produce the record of employment as well as seniority list for the relevant period in respect of the respondent on the ground that the record for more than five years is not maintained. It is submitted that the Labour Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of the witness for the petitioner in the trial Court that the name of the respondent was not recommended from the Employment Exchange Officer. 8. The Industrial Disputes Act does 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 the 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. It is open for the Labour Court to decline relief if the 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. 9. At the same time, it must be borne in mind 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 that 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, considering the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, granted the benefit of reinstatement to the respondent to his former post with continuity of service. 10. In the facts and circumstances when record of the respondent/employee was not retained by the employer, an adverse inference could be raised against the employer. There was no evidence to believe that the respondent was a daily rated employee and was not appointed against any post and considering the principle stated above, the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service was awarded; however, back wages was rightly refused. The principle of “no work no pay” is attracted. The impugned Award passed by the Labour Court is well reasoned and balanced one and need no interference in exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Hence, the Writ Petition is found without merits and it is dismissed with costs.