ORDER : G. Narendar, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order passed on 19-7-2013 by the Labour Court in Application No. 10 of 2005 preferred under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for determining the amount due to the applicant i.e., the petitioner herein and pay the same with interest. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent-management and that upon the respondent-management's refusing work to the petitioner, who was employed as a waiter, the petitioner approached the Labour Court vide Reference No. 32 of 1984, which came to be disposed of by an Award dated 30-4-1985 and it was held that the II party/employer is not justified in refusing work to the I Party/workman and the II Party /employer was directed to reinstate the I Party/workman with continuity of service and back wages with effect from 2-6-1982. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that he made several attempts to resume employment with the respondent-management but the same were futile as the respondent-management refused to allow him to resume duty and he was not reinstated as ordered. Hence, he has preferred the present application. 5. The Labour Court after hearing the parties has noted that the petitioner had preferred a similar application bearing No. 4 of 1993, which came to be dismissed on 19-6-1997 for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the applicant has preferred miscellaneous application bearing No. 13 of 1997 to set aside the order of dismissal and to restore the earlier application bearing No. 4 of 1993. The said miscellaneous application also came to be dismissed for non-prosecution on 17-12-2003. 6. It is also seen that the petitioner had initiated criminal proceedings under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the CJM, Mysore, which came to be dropped on account of the death of the Proprietor of the respondent-management. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that several attempts were made but, the respondent refused to reinstate the petitioner-workman into the establishment. The learned Counsel would also rely upon numerous letters addressed and marked as Exs. W. 3 to W. 20 and Exs. W. 22 to W. 25. 8. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that several attempts were made but, the respondent refused to reinstate the petitioner-workman into the establishment. The learned Counsel would also rely upon numerous letters addressed and marked as Exs. W. 3 to W. 20 and Exs. W. 22 to W. 25. 8. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner never made any attempt to report to duty and hence, the allegation that the respondent refused reinstatement is baseless. He would draw the attention of the Court to the legal notice issued by the respondent-management, which is produced and marked as Ex. M. 3, whereby the petitioner-workman has been put on notice, regarding the fact of receipt of an empty postal cover. A perusal of the said legal notice would reveal that it is the petitioner, who has been put on notice, and by the said notice the respondent-management has called upon the petitioner to join duty forthwith. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain as to why no attempts were made to respond to the said demand of the management. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of the Court to the record of proceedings more particularly, the proceedings dated 30-7-2008 and would submit that the respondent for the first time has expressed a desire to settle the issue. A perusal of recording of the proceedings dated 30-7-2008 would reveal that the Labour Court has suggested the petitioner to resume duly forthwith, which the petitioner has refused on the premise that he has to consult his wife and children and the children were attending the school in his native place. It is only demonstrative of the fact of unwillingness on the part of the petitioner-workman to resume work and hence, the Labour Court has rightly concluded that the petitioner has not proved his willingness to resume duty. This finding is further strengthened by the record of the proceedings dated 13-8-2008, wherein he has admitted that he is residing in Kerala and that he has to come from Kerala. In fact, the Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner has not ascribed any reason/s for the inordinate delay of 21 years in approaching the Labour Court for relief. If is seen that the order of reinstatement passed in 1985 was never sought to be implemented by the petitioner. In fact, the Labour Court has concluded that the petitioner has not ascribed any reason/s for the inordinate delay of 21 years in approaching the Labour Court for relief. If is seen that the order of reinstatement passed in 1985 was never sought to be implemented by the petitioner. The alleged certificate of postings do not inspire the confidence of this Court. A perusal of the same would also demonstrate that the same has been posted from his native district in Kerala only. The petitioner has also no explanation for the omission to comply with the demands of the Management to report/resume duty vide Ex. R. 3. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Rashid B. Mulani (2006) 1 SCC 407 , has been pleased to hold that sending a letter under certificate of posting and registered post stand on different footing more particularly, so when the dispatch of letter is disputed or denied and it has been pleased to hold that a letter sent by way of certificate of posting in such circumstances may be very little assistance. Para 17 of the said decision reads as follows: "A certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post, a receipt with serial number is issued and a record is maintained by the post office. But when a mere certificate of posting is sought, no record is maintained by the post office either about the receipt of the letter or the certificate issued. The ease with which such certificates can be procured by affixing antedated seal with the connivance of any employee of the post office is a matter of concern. The Department of Posts may have to evolve some procedure whereby a record in regard to the issuance of certificates is regularly maintained showing a serial number, date, sender's name and addressee's name to avoid misuse. In the absence of such a record, a certificate of posting may be of very little assistance, where the dispatch of such communications is disputed or denied as in this case. Be that as it may." In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any irregularity or perversity in the reasoning accorded by the Labour Court to reject the application. Be that as it may." In the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any irregularity or perversity in the reasoning accorded by the Labour Court to reject the application. The impugned order stands by sound reasoning. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and stands rejected.