JUDGMENT : ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Jagdish Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Sri Gopal Narayan, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of Workman i.e. respondent No. 2 and submits that he has filed his caveat in the Registry but the same has not been reported by the Stamp Reporter. 3. In light of the proposed order, notices to other respondent is dispensed with. 4. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality and validity of the order passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Saharanpur dated 18.08.2022 thereby allowing the reference and passing of an award in favour of the employee thereby setting aside the order of termination of the respondent and giving him 25% of the back-wags from the date of termination till the date he would have superannuated and also post retiral dues which would have been admissible to the respondent had he superannuated from services considering that he would be worked during the period he remained under termination. 4. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition is that respondent was working with the petitioner i.e. Nagarpalika Parishad Khatauli, Muzffarpur on the post of Moharrir when he was supposed to appear before the Civil Court to give evidence in Suit No. 166/167. The allegations against the respondent was that he failed to appear before the concerned court which was evident by the fact that on the said date no evidence of respondent/workman was recorded. 5. Opportunity was given to the respondent where he denied the allegations against him and stated that he had appeared before the concerned court and at the said time various other employees were also present in the court but no evidence was recorded by the Court for which he cannot be held to be responsible. Statement of one such person, namely, Ali was also recorded during the said proceedings. The respondents not being satisfied with the response of the workman terminated his services by means of order dated 16.08.1968. Against the order of termination, the petitioner had filed a civil suit being civil Suit No. 399/69. 6. It is further noticed that during pendency of the civil suit, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 came into existence and accordingly the proceedings of the civil suit were transferred to the tribunal. Against the order of termination, the petitioner had filed a civil suit being civil Suit No. 399/69. 6. It is further noticed that during pendency of the civil suit, the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Tribunal Act, 1976 came into existence and accordingly the proceedings of the civil suit were transferred to the tribunal. The Tribunal decided the said controversy and allowed the claim of the respondent and set aside his order of termination by means of order dated 18.03.1980. While allowing the claim of the workman, the Tribunal gave liberty to the Nagarpalika Parishad to proceed afresh against the respondent in accordance with law. 7. In pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal dated 30.04.1979, the petitioner appointed an inquiry officer on 18.03.1980 and after due process again terminated the services of the respondent on 17.09.1980. Against the fresh order of termination dated 17.09.1980, the respondent approached U.P. Public Service Tribunal by filing claim petition being Claim Petition No. 208/11/81 which was rejected on 23.11.1983 on the ground of alternate remedy. The Tribunal considered the fact that respondent-workman has an efficacious remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act and consequently dismissed the claim of the respondent. Subsequently, the respondent also approached this Court assailing the order of Tribunal and this Court by means of order dated 04.07.2003 upheld the order of Tribunal and dismissed the petition on the ground of alternate remedy. 8. After rejection of the claim of the petitioner before the Tribunal and before this Court on the ground of alternate remedy, the petitioner approached Labour court where conciliation proceedings took place and finally as no settlement could be arrived at, the conciliation proceedings were closed and brought to an end on 17.11.2008 and copy of the report was also sent to the State Government which referred the matter for adjudication and a Reference No. 54/2008 was made to the Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and to the workman allowed the claim by means of impugned order dated 18.08.2022 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned award has submitted that challenge before the Tribunal was highly belated. The Labour Court after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and to the workman allowed the claim by means of impugned order dated 18.08.2022 which has been challenged in the present writ petition. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the impugned award has submitted that challenge before the Tribunal was highly belated. It is stated that services of the respondent were terminated on 17.09.1980 and after 24 years the matter was referred to the Labour Court and on this ground alone the claim ought to have been rejected. 10. Learned counsel for workman on the other hand has submitted that since his first termination from service on 16.08.1968, the respondent has been regularly and constantly contesting his termination order before various forums. Initially he had filed a civil suit which was subsequently transferred to the U.P. Public Service Tribunal on its due constitution in 1976. The Tribunal after considering the claim of the respondent had allowed the claim petition and set aside the order of termination, remitting the matter back to the petitioner for reinstating the proceeding in accordance with law. It is only in pursuance of the direction issued by the Tribunal that an inquiry officer was appointed on 18.03.1980 and his services were terminated for the second time on 17.09.1980. Against the order of termination, he has again approached Public Service Tribunal which rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of alternate remedy which order was subsequently upheld by this Court by order dated 04.07.2003 on the ground of alternate remedy. 11. It is only after rejection of the claim of the respondent on the ground of alternate remedy that the respondent approached Labour Court and conciliation proceedings were commenced. The conciliation proceedings also resulted in failure sometimes in 2008 and subsequently the reference was made which has been adjudicated by means of impugned order. This Court has considered the manner in which the respondent has assailed the order of termination since its inception. He has diligently and vigilantly assailed the said order before various forums. At the first instance, the Tribunal had adjudicated the said controversy and set aside the order of rejection but in the second ground of rejection his claim was rejected on the ground of alternate remedy and he duly approached the forum which was assigned while considering his claim before the Tribunal. 12. At the first instance, the Tribunal had adjudicated the said controversy and set aside the order of rejection but in the second ground of rejection his claim was rejected on the ground of alternate remedy and he duly approached the forum which was assigned while considering his claim before the Tribunal. 12. The aforesaid facts were duly considered by the Labour Court and Issue No. 3 was framed and duly answered in favour of the workman. The entire period since 1968 till passing of the impugned order has been duly considered and duly explained and hence it cannot be said that there has been any delay or slackness on the part of workman in assailing his order of termination. There is no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Labour Court in this regard and accordingly the arguments raised by the petitioner in this regard are rejected. 13. Another ground for assailing the impugned order is stated that after termination of the services, the respondent was employed with M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited Unit Sugar, Khatauli and accordingly it was submitted that the respondent was not entitled to any back wages. The Issue No. 5 was duly framed by the Labour Court in this regard and the claim of the petitioner was rejected solely on the ground that no evidence could be produced by them with regard to his previous employment. Even before this Court, the petitioner could not place on record any fact which indicate that the respondent was gainfully employed during the period of termination which may necessitate interference in award of back wages granted to him. In absence of any material which may indicate that the Tribunal has misdirected itself or recorded any perverse finding, I do not find any ground for interference is made out with the findings recorded in this regard. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner with regard to back wages also does not have any merit and is accordingly rejected. 14. In absence of any material which may indicate that the Tribunal has misdirected itself or recorded any perverse finding, I do not find any ground for interference is made out with the findings recorded in this regard. Accordingly, the argument of the petitioner with regard to back wages also does not have any merit and is accordingly rejected. 14. No other ground has been pressed by the petitioner while assailing the said order considering the fact that the services of the respondent was terminated in 1968 for which he has been constantly litigating and his claim has been allowed in various stages by means of the impugned order dated 18.8.2022 Labour Court has also returned a finding in his favour and awarding him 25% of back-wages to which he is entitled from the date of termination till he has been superannuated and also retiral dues admissible had he remained in services. Let the awarded amount be paid to the respondent forthwith, not later than three weeks from today. 15. In light of the above, the writ petition is bereft of merits and is accordingly dismissed.