ORDER : Heard Sri R.V.Nadagouda, learned Addl. Advocate General for the petitioners and Sri P.Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The fact is, the respondent herein raised Industrial Dispute against the petitioners, claiming that he worked as Watchman from 01.11.1985 in the office of Assistant Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Kalaburagi till 2001 and then at Chincholli from 2001-2003. A Departmental Enquiry was held against him and he was terminated from service on 01.04.2003 without compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Dispute Act (for short ‘the Act’). However, he has worked continuously without any break of service for more than 240 days in a year. The petitioners/second party appeared before the Labour Court and contested the claim. The workman got examined himself as WW.1 and marked one document as Ex.W1. MW.1 was examined for the Management/2nd petitioner. 3. After a careful consideration to entire material on record, the Labour Court allowed the reference in part. The termination order dated 01.04.2003 was set aside and the workman was ordered to be reinstated without continuity of service or backwages. 4. Sri R.V.Nadagouda, learned Addl. Advocate General for the petitioners taking the Court through the award of the Labour Court submits that the Labour Court had observed that the workman had falsely contended before the Court that he had been working since 1985. But, considering his age as on the date he was examined before the Court, he would be eight years old during 1985 and his employment is against the statutory prohibition to employ a minor in the service. That apart, except the order of transfer, there are no other documentary proof to establish about his service under the petitioners and there was a delay of four years in raising the dispute. The Labour Court without considering the above facts has passed the award in his favour that has caused the miscarriage of justice. 5. In reply, P.Sri Vilas Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the delay was not an issue referred for adjudication to the Labour Court. The Act does not stipulate any time limit to raise the industrial dispute. At the most, delay in raising a dispute may be factor to be counted upon for the purpose of moulding proper relief. For the said reason only, the Labour Court has not granted any backwabges or benefit of continuity of service. The Act does not stipulate any time limit to raise the industrial dispute. At the most, delay in raising a dispute may be factor to be counted upon for the purpose of moulding proper relief. For the said reason only, the Labour Court has not granted any backwabges or benefit of continuity of service. After considering this aspect of the matter, in the body of its judgment at paragraph No.21 has allowed the reference. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected. 6. ‘Falsununofalsusomnibus’ is not always the formula in the Indian scenario, that is the good old rule of wisdom accepted by the Courts. The evidence adduced by the first party about his length of service under the second party is falsified by his own statement, still the Labour Court has rightly considered the transfer order at Ex.W1, analyzed evidence in a proper perspective and held that the respondent had worked for 240 days in the year 2002 and continued his service till 01.04.2003. He being a workman under Section 2(S) of the Act could not have been terminated without abiding by the mandate of Section 25 (F) of the Act. 7. The finding of the Labour Court since based on the tangible material available on record, the workman can not be non-suited on the sole ground that he had given a false statement regarding length of his service. Rightly the labour Court has moulded the relief having regard to the facts and circumstances displayed before it. The award at Annexure-A is legal and proper and does not call for exercise of writ jurisdiction. Hence, the petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of writ petition, I.A.1/2014 filed for direction does not survive for consideration and the same is rejected.