JUDGMENT : B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. 1. The legality and correctness of order of the learned single Judge dated 26/10/2017, passed in W.P.No.36262/2017 is assailed in this appeal by the appellant/company, which is engaged in the business of mining and minerals. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the respondent herein had joined the services of the appellant/company in its mining unit situated at Jamboor Chromite Mines, Channarayapatna Taluk, Hassan District, as a mine worker. He had joined services on 13/10/1979 at the age of thirty-four years as, according to him, he was born on 13/10/1945. The same was accepted by the appellant/ company. While he was discharging his duty as a mine worker on 16/04/1998, he was terminated from service on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation i.e., 58 years. The terminal benefits and other dues to the respondent were paid to him. The respondent accepted cessation of service as well as his terminal benefits. But, in the year 2007, he raised C.R.No.81/2007 i.e., nine years after he was terminated from service and in C.R.No.81/2007, an award was passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as “the Industrial Tribunal” for the sake of convenience). The same was through a reference order made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short). The said reference was contested by the appellant herein. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the order of termination dated 16/04/1998 and directed the appellant herein to pay full back wages and other consequential benefits from 16/04/1998 to 13/10/2003 by its award dated 27/02/2017. Being aggrieved, the appellant herein preferred W.P.No.36262/2017. Learned single Judge by order dated 26/10/2017 dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved, the appellant/company has preferred this appeal. 3. We have heard learned counsel, Sri.L.Venkatarama Reddy for the appellant/company, Sri. Lokesh R, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and perused the material on record. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are served and unrepresented. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made a twofold submission: firstly, he contended that though the order of termination was passed as early as on 16/04/1998, the respondent having accepted the terminal benefits remained silent and acquiesced in the same for nearly nine years. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are served and unrepresented. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made a twofold submission: firstly, he contended that though the order of termination was passed as early as on 16/04/1998, the respondent having accepted the terminal benefits remained silent and acquiesced in the same for nearly nine years. Only in the year 2007, an application was filed seeking reference of the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal. The said Authority has failed to appreciate the fact that there was a delay of nine years in approaching the Authority assailing the order of termination dated 16/04/1998. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the reference ought to have been rejected on the ground of delay and laches, instead, the same was allowed, that too, by setting aside the order of termination dated 16/04/1998 of the respondent, with a direction to pay full back wages and other benefits from 16/04/1998 to 13/10/2003 which is also arbitrary. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant secondly, submitted that the award of full back wages was exorbitant and arbitrary as the respondent approached the Tribunal belatedly after nine long years and on accepting the order of termination and also the terminal benefits. As such, the respondent was estopped from approaching the Tribunal. Even if, for a moment, for the sake of argument, the Industrial Tribunal is said to have been right in setting aside the order of termination, it could not have ordered for payment of full back wages and other consequential benefits from 16/04/1998 to 13/10/2003. He submitted that at best, 25% to 30% of back wages could have been awarded. Therefore, this appeal calls for interference. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 supported the impugned Award. 7. As already noted, respondent Nos.1 to 4 are served and unrepresented. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant/company, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and on perusal of the material on record, we note that the order of termination was with effect from 16/04/1998. There is no dispute that the terminal benefits were paid to the respondent and the same were accepted by him. The respondent having accepted the same remained silent and therefore, acquiesced in the cessation of service on receipt of the terminal benefits, for nine long years. It was only in the year 2007 that the reference was sought before the Industrial Tribunal. The respondent having accepted the same remained silent and therefore, acquiesced in the cessation of service on receipt of the terminal benefits, for nine long years. It was only in the year 2007 that the reference was sought before the Industrial Tribunal. As we have already noted, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are served and are unrepresented. Only respondent No.5 has appeared through counsel. The delay of nine long years in approaching the Industrial Tribunal has not been explained nor the said fact been considered in accordance with law by the Industrial Tribunal. 9. In the circumstances, without going into the correctness or otherwise of the order of termination, bearing in mind the fact that the respondent approached the Industrial Tribunal nine long years after the order of termination, which was on 16/04/1998, by seeking reference in the year 2007, we find that the ends of justice would be met by reducing the percentage of payment of back wages to 50%, rather than dismissing the reference itself. 10. In the circumstances, the order of the learned single Judge as well as the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal are modified by directing the appellant herein to pay 50% of the back wages and consequential benefits from the date of termination i.e., 16/04/1998 to 13/10/2003 to the respondents (Legal representatives of workman). The appeal is allowed in part in the aforesaid terms. No costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, pending applications stand disposed.