ORDER : Paresh Upadhyay, J. Challenge in this petition is made by the employer to the award passed by the Labour Court, Dahod dated 31.03.2014 in Reference (LCD) No.36 of 2012, whereby the respondent-workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages. 1.2 The above award was ex-parte and therefore, the petitioner - Jhalod Taluka Development Officer had immediately moved an application under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, being Misc. Application No.03 of 2014, for setting aside the said ex-parte award. The said application was dated 13.05.2014. However the said application is rejected by the Labour Court, Dahod vide order dated 12.11.2014. This order is also challenged in this petition. 2. Rule. 3. Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the petitioner Authority has submitted that, attempts were made by the petitioner Authority to put the case before the Labour Court on merits, however there was some communication gap on the part of the Authorities of the Panchayat and that his how the impugned award came to be passed ex-parte. It is further submitted that apart from the fact that in the present case, liberty should have been given to the petitioner by the Labour Court to put its case on merits, however even if the case of the workman is seen on its face value, he had approached the Labour Court after more than six years from the alleged date of termination. It is submitted that, thus the impugned award is unsustainable in law, going by the case of the workman himself. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division Kota v. Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543 . It is submitted that the impugned award and order be quashed and set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Chaudhary, learned advocate for the respondent-workman has supported the award and order passed by the Labour Court. It is vehemently submitted that, the facts pleaded in the application before the Labour Court are different than what is pleaded before this Court and therefore no interference be made by this Court. It is submitted that the Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, found that the termination was illegal and this Court may not interfere. It is submitted that the Labour Court, on the basis of the evidence led before it, found that the termination was illegal and this Court may not interfere. It is submitted that this petition be dismissed. 5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds as under. 5.1. It was the case of the workman himself that his service was allegedly terminated in the year 2006. It is not in dispute that, the Reference was made in the year 2012 i.e. after 6 years. The question is, when there was delay of six years on the part of the workman in approaching the Labour Court, whether reinstatement could have been ordered by the Labour Court. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division Kota (supra) , as relied by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Para-19 of the said decision reads as under. "19. We are clearly of the view that though the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to the reference made under the ID Act but delay in raising industrial dispute is definitely an important circumstance which the Labour Court must keep in view at the time of exercise of discretion irrespective of whether or not such objection has been raised by the other side. The legal position laid down by this Court in Gitam Singh that before exercising its judicial discretion, the Labour Court has to keep in view all relevant factors including the mode and manner of appointment, nature of employment, length of service, the ground on which termination has been set aside and the delay in raising industrial dispute before grant of relief in an industrial dispute, must be invariably followed." 5.2 Keeping above preposition of law in view, this Court finds that the Labour Court was in error in awarding reinstatement of the workman. The impugned award is therefore unsustainable in law and the same needs to be quashed and set aside. Considering the totality, the impugned award and the order, both are required to be quashed and set aside. 5.3. So far the quantification of the compensation is concerned, it is yet to be proved that the discontinuance of service was illegal termination as claimed by the workman. Considering the totality, the impugned award and the order, both are required to be quashed and set aside. 5.3. So far the quantification of the compensation is concerned, it is yet to be proved that the discontinuance of service was illegal termination as claimed by the workman. The same can be gone into by the Labour Court after evaluating the evidence led by both the sides. For this purpose, the matter needs to be remanded to the Labour Court. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This petition is partly allowed. 6.2 The impugned award passed by the Labour Court, Dahod in Reference (LCD) No.36 of 2012 dated 31.03.2014 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 12.11.2014 would not survive. 6.3 The matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration, to first adjudicate as to whether, the discontinuance of service of the workman was illegal termination as claimed by him, and if that is so, what amount of compensation should be awarded to the workman, keeping in view the proposition of law enunciated by Honourable the Supreme Court of India in the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division Kota v. Mohan Lal reported in (2013) 14 SCC 543 , more particularly para:19 thereof. 6.4 Rule made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs. Writ Petition partly allowed.