ORDER : Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J 1. This petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the award dated 31st March, 2016 passed by the Labour Court, Janjgir Champa in Case No.04/I.D.A./2015 (Ref.), whereby the respondent/employee was reinstated in service without back wages and it was further directed that the period during which the respondent/employee was out of service shall be computed for all practical purposes. 2. Facts of the case are that the respondent/employee was appointed purely on temporary basis on the post of Roller Helper in the petitioner Department vide order dated 21st May, 1990. However, his services were discontinued from 30th April, 1993. The respondent/ employee raised an industrial dispute after more than 22 years stating that his termination is illegal and bad in law, though he has already completed more than 240 days preceding to his termination in every calender year. Without any payment of retrenchment compensation or legal notice, his services were discontinued, which is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (henceforth ‘the Act, 1947’). The said reference was allowed by the impugned award. Hence this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the industrial dispute has been raised after the considerable lapse of time and the respondent/employee slept over the matter for number of years and, therefore, it can be presumed that he has accepted the factum of his termination. He further submits that in Section 2A of the Act, 1947, an amendment has been made by the Act No.24 of 2010 with effect from 15th September, 2010. A workman may make an application direct to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute after the expiry of forty-five days from the date he has made the application to the concerned officer of the appropriate Government. The application referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made to the Labour Court before the expiry of three years from the date of dismissal or retrenchment. In the instant case, the respondent/employee was terminated on 30th April, 1993, whereas reference was preferred before the Labour Court in the year 2015. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, his claim itself was not maintainable. Reliance is placed in the matter of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1 . 4. In the instant case, the respondent/employee was terminated on 30th April, 1993, whereas reference was preferred before the Labour Court in the year 2015. Therefore, on the ground of delay and laches, his claim itself was not maintainable. Reliance is placed in the matter of Prabhakar Vs. Joint Director, Sericulture Department and Another, (2015) 15 SCC 1 . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent/employee was appointed purely on temporary basis and in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the mater of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1 , the respondent/employee could not claim for regularization of his services dehors the constitutional scheme, inasmuch as the respondent/employee has failed to prove that he has already worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calender year from the date of alleged retrenchment and the burden of proving the same lies on the employee. This proposition has been reiterated in the matter of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation and Others Vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha and Another, (2014) 16 SCC 130 wherein at para-7 the following has been observed:- “7. It is fairly well-settled that for an order of termination of the services of a workman to be held illegal on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation, it is essential for the workman to establish that he was in continuous service of the employer within the meaning of Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. For the respondent to succeed in that attempt he was required to show that he was in service for 240 days in terms of Section 25-B(2)(a)(ii). The burden to prove that he was in actual and continuous service of the employer for the said period lay squarely on the workman. The decisions of this Court in Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani (2002) 3 SCC 25 , Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (2004) 8 SCC 195 , M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (2004) 8 SCC 246 , Rajasthan State Ganganagar S. Mills Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan (2004) 8 SCC 161 , Surendra Nagar District Panchayat v. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai (2005) 8 SCC 450 , and R.M. Yellatti v. Assistant Executive Engineer (2006) 1 SCC 106 unequivocally recognise the principle that the burden to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days is entirely upon him. So also the question whether an adverse inference could be drawn against the employer in case he did not produce the best evidence available with it, has been the subject-matter of pronouncements of this Court in Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v. Siri Niwas (supra) and M.P. Electricity Board v. Hariram (supra), reiterated in RBI v. S. Mani (2005) 5 SCC 100 . This Court has held that only because some documents have not been produced by the management, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against it.” 5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that considering the aforesaid submissions, the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned award may be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/employee would support the impugned award on submission that the respondent/employee has regularly rendered his services from 25th May, 1990 to 30th April, 1993, which is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ram Manohar Lohia Joint Hospital and Others Vs. Munna Prasad Saini and Another (2021) 12 SCC 466 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon its earlier decision in the matter of BSNL Vs. Bhurumal (2014) 7 SCC 177 , the award may be modified by directing lump sum compensation in favour of the respondent/ employee. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents annexed with the writ petition carefully. 8. Admittedly, the respondent/employee has raised the industrial dispute after more than 22 years, though in the impugned award, certain observations have been made at para-8 that during the said period, in the year 2000, the respondent/employee has made certain correspondences through Union to the petitioner Department, however, the explanation offered by the respondent/employee is not sufficient to condone the delay of 22 years in raising industrial dispute. 9. In the matter of Prabhakar (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that in cases even where no limitation is prescribed, but for a long period the aggrieved party does not approach the machinery provided under the law for redressal of his grievance, it can be presumed that relief can be denied on the ground of unexplained delay and laches and/or on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced into the act of other. The said principle as part of equity is based on principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such a right is non-existent. Finally, it was held at para-44 which reads thus:- “44.To summarise, although there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for making a reference under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, yet it is for the 'appropriate Government' to consider whether it is expedient or not to make the reference. The words 'at any time' used in Section 10(1) do not admit of any limitation in making an order of reference and laws of limitation are not applicable to proceedings under the ID Act. However, the policy of industrial adjudication is that very stale claims should not be generally encouraged or allowed inasmuch as unless there is satisfactory explanation for delay as, apart from the obvious risk to industrial peace from the entertainment of claims after long lapse of time, it is necessary also to take into account the unsettling effect which it is likely to have on the employers' financial arrangement and to avoid dislocation of an industry.” 10. In the matter of Umadevi (Supra), a principle has been reiterated that the temporary employees have no right for regularization dehors the constitutional scheme. 11. Reverting back to the facts of the present case, the Labour Court has ignored the aforesaid principles. Considering that the claim has been raised after the lapse of considerable period, the claim itself is suffering from delay and laches and no sufficient explanation has been offered by the respondent/employee, the petitioner is a State Government department and further that when any appointment is made dehors the constitutional scheme, an employee cannot claim regularization as a matter of right, without further dwelling on other issues, this Court is of the opinion that the Labour Court has wrongly passed the impugned award in favour of the respondent/employee, which is not sustainable. 12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned award is set aside.