Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. This writ petition is directed against the award dated 27.10.1998, passed by the labour court in Adjudication Case No. 39 of 1990. After transfer from Rampur, this case was registered as Adjudication Case No. 132 of 1994 at Bareilly.
3. Out of 13 employees whose case was espoused by the Hydroelectric Employees Union, Lucknow, the case of Sajid Husain son of Ram Singh was not pressed by the Union before the labour court on the ground that they had continuously not worked for 240 days. The dispute thus remained in respect of only ten employees.
4. The case of the respondents-workmen before the labour court was that they were employed on 1.1.1976, as daily rated coolie and continuously worked upto 1.2.1979. It is submitted by the counsel that the services of these workmen were terminated on 1.2.1979 without payment of retrenchment compensation, in violation of provisions of Sections 6N and 6Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is further submitted that after their termination, several workers were appointed as daily rated workers, but inspite of the aforesaid Board orders, none of the aforesaid ten workmen were taken back in service.
5. Further the case of the workmen was that according to the report submitted by the Tandon Committee the workmen were also entitled to be regularized in service as workmen juniors to them, have also been regularized. Non-regularisation of the workmen in service, in these circumstances, amounts to unfair practice and discrimination in the matter of employment.
6. The case of the employers before the labour court was that except Sajid Husain and Brijendra Singh, none of the alleged workers had been in the employment and none of these workers had given the period of their alleged employment or engagement with the petitioners. It was submitted that a list of workers was prepared on 31.1.1979 by the employers after screening all the workers, who had worked for 240 days in a calendar year and except the aforesaid two persons, it was found that none of them had worked under the employers for 240 days. It was further stated that in so far as Sajid Husain and Brijendra Singh were concerned, there was a difference in the parentage given by them before the Interview committee and an enquiry was conducted. During the pendency of the enquiry the Board by its letter No. 1450 dated 13.4.1988 imposed a ban on appointment. Consequently, by order No. 147 dated 17.1.1979 the Board had stopped engagement with effect from 1.2.1979 and as such the claim of the workers is misconceived and there is no question of either regularization or giving them appointment on the post of coolie and corresponding pay scale.
7. It is relevant to point out that Sri M. C. Joshi had issued certificate on 16.5.1983 that the contesting workmen had worked during the period February, 1978 to January, 1979, i.e., for more than 240 days in Electricity Distribution Division, Moradabad. The labour court relying upon the statement made by Sri M. C. Joshi, who was Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, Moradabad, held that the respondents-workmen had continuously worked for more than 240 days as muster roll employees under the employers.
8. It further appears from the record that there was an order earlier passed by the Board that 140 posts should be filled by the employees including the contesting respondents.
9. There is also evidence on the record that by letter dated 7th March, 1988, the Chief Personal Officer of the U.P.S.E.B. had written to the Superintending Engineer, U.P.S.E.B., Moradabad to include the names of the contesting respondents and further that they shall be considered for their selection and regularisation. The copies of the aforesaid letters dated 7.3.1988 and 26.10.1987 have been appended as Annexure-C.A.-1 and Annexure-C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit. Vide Annexure-2 a list was submitted by Sri M. C. Joshi recommending that the names of contesting respondents should be included in the list for regularization.
10. The labour court has recorded finding of fact that the employers had indulged in unfair practice. The labour court has further recorded finding of fact that the ten contesting respondents had worked not less than 240 days. This finding is based on the statement of Sri M. C. Joshi and Bishan Kumar Sharma. The aforesaid finding of fact is based on evidence. Their non-engagement is in violation of the provisions of Sections 6N and 6Q of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The labour court further held that 140 workmen engaged as daily rated coolie were ordered to be reinstated, but these ten workmen were not reinstated on the ground of ban on service arbitrarily.
11. The finding of labour court directing that the services of these workmen be regularized and they should be given their posts and corresponding pay scale of the coolie, cannot be faulted but more than twenty years have passed since termination of their service. They were daily wager and approached the Conciliation Board in 1988 in pursuance of which a reference was made to the labour court on 16.11.1990, i.e., almost after 11 years.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the delay in reference culminating the award is fatal and the workmen could not have been granted the relief of reinstatement.
13. It is settled law that there is no limitation prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act for raising the dispute and that if a party approaches the Court even belatedly, the Industrial Tribunal has power to mould the relief as has been held by the Apex Court in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing Cum Processing Service Society Ltd. and Anr., 1999 (2) AWC 1649 (SC) ; : 1999 (82) FLR 137 and Sapan Kumar Pandit v. Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board and Ors., 2001 (3) AWC 2342 (SC) : 2001 (90) FLR 754 (SC). For delay, the labour court may not award back wages in the circumstances of case.
14. In Ratan Chandra Sammanta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1993 (2) AWC 1147 (SC) ; 1993 (67) FLR 70, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the delay of 15 years in approaching the Court would not deprive the workers of remedy available to them in law. The labour court has moulded the relief and has not awarded amenities, facilities or back wages for the period of pendency of the dispute.
15. The labour court has not committed any illegality in reinstating the workmen, who not only proved continuous working with the employers for more than 240 days, but also proved that they had been discriminated from 140 workmen, who had worked with them and were taken in service. Substantial justice 1ms been done between the parties.
16. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners except that of delay and they have failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the award. It is not a fit case for interference in the finding of facts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.