The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely reference to the Labour Court, the requirement for credible evidence of employment, and the discretionary power of the Labour Court in awarding back wages.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against the impugned award dated 14. 2. 2000 passed by the labour Court, U. P. , Agra, in Adjudication Case No. 120 of 1997 directing the petitioner to regularize respondent No. 1 in service from the date of reference, i. e. , 2,9. 1997 and pay him Rs. 5,000 as damages and also give him promotion since 31. 12. 1979, the date on which he was alleged to have been terminated with all the consequential benefits.

( 2 ) THE State of U. P. made the following reference to the Labour Court, U. P. , Agra for adjudication of dispute :. . (Vernacular Text Deleted ). .

( 3 ) THE case of the respondent-workman in his written statement filed before the Labour Court was that he was taken in service on 24. 3. 1977 as a daily wage coolie and he worked as such upto 31. 12. 1979. On 31. 12. 1979 he was retrenched without giving any charge sheet, notice or retrenchment compensation. He also stated that he had completed 240 days in a year.

( 4 ) IN its written-statement the petitioner denied the claim of the respondent-workman, inter alia, stating that he was never employed nor he had worked in its organization and as such there was no relation of employer and employee between the parties and consequently there is no industrial dispute between them.

( 5 ) THE respondent-workman appeared and made his statement. On behalf of the petitioner-Corporation Sri S. S. Chauhan, the then Executive Engineer, was examined and in his statement he proved the list of workmen who had worked in the Corporation for more than 240 days but in that list the name of the respondent-workman was not figured and as such the respondent-workman could not be taken to have worked 240 days in the petitioner-Corporation. Besides Sri S. S. Chauhan, Sri Prashant Kumar Ghosh (Shift Engineer, Urban Electricity distribution Division, Agra), Sri Suresh Chand (Shift Engineer, Agra Fort Power Station) and sri S. S. L. Bhatnagar (Executive Engineer, who was posted as Assistant Engineer Generation division, Agra during the period 1973 to 1979) were also examined by the petitioner-Corporation. Since the dispute was raised after a lapse of about 18 years, it was specifically stated by the petitioner in its written-statement that the reference was barred by limitation.

( 6 ) THE Labour Court after hearing both the parties allowed the claim of the respondent-workman vide its award dated 14. 2. 2000 which was published on 15. 11. 2000.

( 7 ) THE Labour Court disbelieved the evidence of witness for employers and relying upon an alleged undated character certificate is said to have been issued by Sri S. S. L. Bhatnagar, stating that the two respondents Lokendra Kumar and Yogendra Kumar have worked under him from 24. 2. 1977 to 31. 12. 1979. It appears from the record that Sri S. S. L. Bhatnagar had been transferred from Agra to Kanpur on 5. 2. 1979.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY the services of the respondents were terminated on 31. 12. 1979. The dispute was raised by them in 1997 after eighteen years. They were daily wagers and muster-roll employees.

( 9 ) THE Labour Court has held that delay of 18 years is of no consequence. The Labour Court did not consider the matter of delay in the award. The question of delay of reference has been considered in a catena of decisions by the Apex Court starting from Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 1217. The three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that "it is true that there is no limitation prescribed for reference of a dispute to a Tribunal, even so it is only reasonable that dispute should be referred as soon as possible after they have arisen and when dispute relates to discharge of workmen, 3 years would be justified in refusing the relief of reinstatement to avoid dislocation of industry.

( 10 ) IN the later decision in Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K. P. Madhav Kutti, 2000 (2) AWC 923 (SC): AIR 2000 SC 839, the Apex Court held that though no time limit is prescribed, it does not mean that power to