JUDGMENT Surya Kant, C.J. - State of Himachal Pradesh through Forest Department assails the Award dated 30th November, 2015, passed by Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby the respondent has been ordered to be reinstated in service with continuity in service and seniority, except back wages. It has been further directed that if services of his juniors have been regularized as per Government Policy governing daily wagers, then on the same analogy the claim of the respondent be also considered. 2. Though, it is vehemently urged by Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General that the respondent-workman did not complete 240 days in any calendar year during the year 2009-2014 when he was engaged by the Department, but we are of the view that such a plea on behalf of the petitioners cannot be entertained. We say so for the reason that the writ petition suffers from inordinate and unexplained delay and laches. The Award was passed in November, 2015, whereas the Department has chosen to challenge the same after more than three years. There is no explanation worth acceptance as to what prevented the Authorities from questioning the Award within a reasonable period. The Writ Petition thus, is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. 3. Having held so, we have ventured into the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner-Department. It has been found, as a mater of fact, by the Tribunal that Muster Roll had not been issued for so many months. It has been further found from the Mandays Chart Ext. RW- 1/B that the respondent-workman was engaged and disengaged whimsically and apparently with a view to give fictional breaks so that he could be deprived of the statutory benefit of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The Tribunal has found that the respondent was continuously engaged from the year 2000 and even subsequent thereto, but the Department indulged in unfair labour practice by causing deliberate breaks in the continuity of service, so that, he may not seek protection of Section 25B of the Act. It has also been found that juniors of the petitioners were retained in service and their names have been specifically noted by the Tribunal in para 16 of the Award. The retention of juniors in service was admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer during his examination as RW-1. It has also been found that juniors of the petitioners were retained in service and their names have been specifically noted by the Tribunal in para 16 of the Award. The retention of juniors in service was admitted by the Divisional Forest Officer during his examination as RW-1. The Tribunal has, thus, held and rightly so, that there is violation of Section 25G of the Act. In the light of these glaring facts, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly held the respondent entitled to be reinstated in service without any back wages. No case, thus, for interference is made out, on merits. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.