ORDER : 1. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-State against the award of the Labour Court, Varanasi dated 24.02.2012 in Adjudication Case No. 56 of 2007. By that award, the Labour Court had granted relief of reinstatement to the respondent-workman (respondent no. 2), together with one time compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 2. Sri Vijay Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioners is a department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh and that the terms of engagement of employees by the petitioner are governed strictly by rules and no recruitment, regularization etc. may be made by the petitioner, except in accordance with the rules. 3. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the following reference had been made by the Government under Section 4K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’): ^^D;k lsok;kstdksa }kjk vius Jfed Jh jkts'k dqekj frokjh iq= LoŒ cPpk frokjh in lhapiky dh lsok;sa fnukad 01-07-1990 ls lekIr fd;k tkuk mfpr rFkk@vFkok oS/kkfud gS \ ;fn ugha gS rks lEcaf/kr Jfed D;k fgrykHk@{kfriwfrZ ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS ,oa fdu vU; fooj.kksa lfgr \** 4. Upon that reference thus made, the respondent workman filed his written statement, alleging he had been engaged as "Seenchpal" and had worked for the petitioner-Irrigation Department from 01.11.1988 to 31.08.1991. Thereafter, he had been orally removed from service. Therefore, the respondent-workman claimed violation of Section 6N of the Act and accordingly sought relief of reinstatement with back wages. The petitioner, in its written statement filed before the Labour Court, raised an objection as to gross delay in making the reference. Further, it was stated, due to that delay, vital evidence had been lost. Also, it was stated, the respondent workman had not worked for 240 days in one calendar year preceding his removal from service and therefore he had not rendered continuous service as defined under section 2(g) of the Act. 5. At the stage of evidence, the respondent workman appears to have filed four documents, being a certificate/letter issued by the Assistant Engineer dated 26.09.1989; a letter/ certificate issued by the Ziledar dated 22.01.1990; a letter dated 13.11.1990 issued by the Assistant Engineer and a document purported to be photocopy of a muster roll. 5. At the stage of evidence, the respondent workman appears to have filed four documents, being a certificate/letter issued by the Assistant Engineer dated 26.09.1989; a letter/ certificate issued by the Ziledar dated 22.01.1990; a letter dated 13.11.1990 issued by the Assistant Engineer and a document purported to be photocopy of a muster roll. Those letters were claimed to establish the respondent workman had worked in the petitioner establishment during the period 1989 to 1990. Oral evidence was also led by the respondent workman, wherein he made a statement of having worked for 240 days during one calendar year between 01.11.1988 and 31.08.1991. Also, he proved the documents that have been referred to. The photocopy of the muster roll also sought to be proved. However, it is apparent from the record that the petitioner department was never summoned. 6. The petitioner led oral evidence denying existence of any documentary evidence or any other evidence to establish engagement of the respondent workman as claimed by him. It was further stated that certain workmen were engaged on muster roll as and when there existed work subject to finances being available. 7. On such pleadings and evidence, the Labour Court has made its award, wherein it has first recorded a finding that the delay could not be a ground to defeat the reference. Also, looking to the documentary evidence produced by the workman, it has been inferred that he had worked during the period 01.11.1988 to 31.08.1991. Further, finding has been returned that the respondent workman had worked for 240 days in one calendar year on the basis of documentary and oral evidence led by the workman. 8. On such findings, the Labour Court proceeded to award the relief of reinstatement, together with one time lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/-. 9. Learned Standing Counsel for the petitioners submits, in the first place, the respondent workman was a daily wage employee, engaged by the petitioner, a Government Department, according to exigency of work. The respondent workman was never regularly appointed on any post by the petitioner department and that in view of the ban imposed by the State Government against fresh appointments, the respondent could never be granted regular appointment. The respondent workman was never regularly appointed on any post by the petitioner department and that in view of the ban imposed by the State Government against fresh appointments, the respondent could never be granted regular appointment. Second, it has been submitted that in similar circumstances, the respondent workman had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 15608 of 1993 Pyare Prasad vs. State of U.P. and Others, claiming the relief of regularization, which writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.10.1998. Therefore, it has been submitted that the Labour Court has erred in granting relief of reinstatement to the respondent workman. Third, it has been submitted, in any case, the respondent workman having been disengaged in the year 1990, the reference was made wholly belatedly in the year 2006 upon conciliation proceedings having been first instituted in the year 2002. Therefore, it has been submitted that the relief of reinstatement could never have been granted by the Labour Court in face of specific objection raised by the petitioners that its record had got misplaced and therefore the delay caused by the respondent workman should disentitle him to the relief of reinstatement. Last, it has been submitted that there is no evidence adduced before the Labour Court as may have allowed that Court to record a finding of continuous service in favour of the respondent workman. 10. Learned Standing Counsel would thus submit, the Labour Court erred in relying on the self-serving statements of the respondent workman made in that regard, both in the pleadings as also in the evidence. He would therefore submit that the award of the Tribunal for reinstatement of the workman is wholly erroneous and perverse. 11. Shri Nilamber Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent workman, on the other hand, submits that the concept of bar of limitation does not exist under the industrial law. He would, therefore, submit that the delay, if any, in approaching the Labour Court was not decisive or fatal to the claim made by the respondent workman. Also, he submitted, earlier the respondent workman had approached this Court by filing the writ petition noted above, claiming the relief of regularization. That claim came to be rejected in 1998 and, therefore, the respondent workman had not unduly delayed the proceedings in approaching the Labour Court through conciliation proceedings in the year 2002. Also, he submitted, earlier the respondent workman had approached this Court by filing the writ petition noted above, claiming the relief of regularization. That claim came to be rejected in 1998 and, therefore, the respondent workman had not unduly delayed the proceedings in approaching the Labour Court through conciliation proceedings in the year 2002. A reference has also been made to the documents annexed to the rejoinder affidavit, claiming that the petitioner had engaged the respondent workman again in the year 2002, though for some time. Therefore, according to the respondent workman, there was no delay as may have led to the claim of the respondent workman being defeated. 12. As to the submissions advanced by learned Standing Counsel to the findings recorded by the Labour Court of 240 days of continuous service, it has been submitted that the workman had filed all the documents that were available with him and it was for the petitioners to have led the appropriate evidence to rebut the same and in absence of any evidence in rebuttal, the Labour Court had not erred in recording the finding of continuous service, in favour of the respondent workman. 13. Also, it has been submitted that the respondent workman having worked with the petitioners for a substantial period of time from 1988 to 1991 and the nature of work being of continuous and permanent, the respondent workman had been rightly reinstated by the Labour Court. The plea of employment by the petitioner being governed by Rules has only been set up to defeat the just claim of the respondent workman. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the award of the Labour Court, in the first place, there was no defect in the reference being made consequent to the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, being Writ Petition No. 15608 of 1993 filed by the respondent-workman inasmuch as bare perusal of the order passed in that writ petition discloses that the writ petition had been filed seeking relief of regularization while reference was made against the alleged dismissal from service, claiming the relief of reinstatement. The nature of two relief claimed being entirely different, dismissal of the writ petition claiming regularization would have no impact on the relief sought by the respondent-workman, by means of the reference. 15. The nature of two relief claimed being entirely different, dismissal of the writ petition claiming regularization would have no impact on the relief sought by the respondent-workman, by means of the reference. 15. Second, the reference made cannot be faulted as time barred since there did not exist any principle that could be invoked to reach such a conclusion in the context of an industrial dispute. It is well settled principle in this jurisprudence, the delay may not bar a reference or adjudication, however, it may remain open to the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal to mould the relief appropriately in the facts and circumstances that may arise in a given case. Therefore, the reference did not suffer from any fundamental defect, however, it would remain to be examined whether the relief of reinstatement may have been granted despite the delay in raising the industrial dispute. 16. In that regard, it is seen that the petitioners had, by means of its written statement, specifically raised an objection that on account of the delay in raising the industrial dispute, its record had got misplaced. The Labour Court has not recorded any finding to disbelieve that contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. Also, the evidence that was adduced by the respondent-workman, at most, established he was a daily wage employee. The fact that earlier the respondent-workman had claimed the relief of regularization by means of Writ Petition No. 15608 of 1993 also points to that admission. Then, it is undisputed by the respondent-workman, he had been disengaged in the year 1991. However, according to the reference order, the respondent-workman had been disengaged on 01.07.1990. Undisputedly, the respondent-workman did not seek any conciliation proceedings till as late as in 2002, which is nearly about 12 years after the cessation of his employment. 17. In such facts, the documentary evidence that was adduced by the respondent-workman, clearly did not establish engagement on any permanent basis. As to the plea set up by the respondent-workman of having performed continuous service, besides, the bald statement made in the written statement filed by the respondent-workman and equally self-serving statement made by way of oral statement, there did not exist any evidence that may have led to the conclusion that the respondent-workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year. The documentary evidence referred to above, only establishes that the respondent-workman had worked in the petitioner-establishment for some duration in different years. However, neither the respondent-workman specified that period with reference to the dates and months of any year nor has the Labour Court recorded any finding to that effect. 18. Seen in this light, it does become relevant that undeniably, the petitioner being a government department, it was bound to provide employment on the basis of statutory rules and it was bound by Government Orders issued from time to time. It is thus very doubtful if the petitioner could have made appointment on the post of "Seenchpal" at the relevant time in view of the ban claimed to have been imposed by the State Government, at that time. 19. In such facts, the burden which was always on the respondent- workman to establish existence of master-servant relationship as also to establish discharge of continuous service, could not have been lightly discharged by making an oral statement only to the effect that the respondent- workman had worked for 240 days, without establishing the details of the dates and days of particular months and year when such work had been performed and without leading any evidence as to the payment that may have been received. 20. Also, it is noted that the respondent-workman did not file any application to summon any record of the petitioners and the Labour Court also did not require the petitioners to produce any documents. Further, no adverse inference was drawn against the petitioners of having concealed any evidence from the Labour Court. 21. Therefore, to conclude, the proven status of the respondent-workman remained of a daily wager in a government department. The award of reinstatement is unfounded. 22. Accordingly, the writ petition must succeed. However, it cannot be denied that the respondent-workman had worked for the petitioner-establishment for a significant period of time and therefore he may have become entitled to receive lump sum compensation in lieu of the relief of reinstatement that may never have been granted to specially on account of delay in raising the industrial dispute. Also, the matter is very old. It is painful to remand the matter to the Labour Court to pass afresh award. 23. Also, the matter is very old. It is painful to remand the matter to the Labour Court to pass afresh award. 23. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the award dated 24.02.2012 is modified to the extent, in place of reinstatement and other relief granted by the Labour Court, the respondent-workman shall be entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid by the petitioner through the Labour Court, within a period of one month from today, failing which the said amount would attract interest @ 8% per annum from today till the date of actual payment. 24. The writ petition is partly allowed.