S. S. SUDHALKAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition is filed by the employer challenging the award of the Labour court dated January 8, 1999 (copy Annexure p-4) vide which respondent No.1 was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service.

3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that services of the workman were terminated in the year 1991; demand notice was served in august, 1993; the award was passed on January 8, 1999. Therefore, the petitioner is not responsible for the delay and hence, is not liable to pay back wages.

4. So far as delay from the date of termination till the date of demand notice is concerned, we find it proper to accept his argument that the back wages prior to the date of demand notice may not be granted. However, there is no pleading shown to us from the petition from which the delay between the period 1993 to 1999 is not attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, we do not consider the question of delay for this period.

5. In view of the reason stated above, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order of back wages is modified to the extent that the back wages be given from the date of demand no