Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

2. However, none appears for the respondents even in the revised list though the names of Sri Mustqeem Ahmad and Sri. P.K. Pandey are shown in the cause list.

3. Since there is a direction from Hon’ble the Apex Court dated 30.7.2012 for disposing off the writ petition itself expeditiously the Court is proceeding to dispose off the writ petition under the Rules of the Court.

4. Brief facts are that the respondent workman was engaged as a daily wager driver in the petitioner establishment from 1.4.1992 and he continuously worked for 240 days in each year but he was disengaged w.e.f. 30.5.1998 without any notice or compensation when he raised a demand for regularization. He approached the Conciliation Officer in 2007 but upon a failure report the State Government referred it as an industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Allahabad which registered it as Adjudication Case No. 64 of 2007. The petitioners contested the claim inter alia stating that it was a stale dispute and ought not to have been referred. It further alleged that the workman was only a daily wager who was engaged whenever need arose and there is no post of driver sanctioned in the establishment and he was never engaged in accordance to the rules and was gainfully employed and therefore, was not entitled to any relief.

5. After the parties led their evidence, the Labour Court found that the workman had worked continuously from 1992 to May, 1998 completing 240 days in each year but he was illegally removed against the statutory provisions without any notice or compensation or hearing and therefore, was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, the workman was made entitled to wages only from the date of publication of the award. It further issued a direction to the petitioner to get a driver’s post sanctioned from the State Government.

6. After hearing the parties, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed an interim order on 10.8.2011 directing the petitioners to pay Rs. 10,000/- within a month to the workman and further directing it to reinstate him subject to further orders of this Court and in the meantime get a driver’s post sanctioned from the State Government for appointment of the workman within a period of three months. This interim order was subjected to appeal before the Apex Court and the appeal was disposed off vide order dated 30.7.2012 staying the operation of the interim order of this Court and a further direction that the High Court may dispose off the writ petition itself, expeditiously.

7. It is urged that the reference was highly belated and no explanation for the delay having been given, stale dispute ought not to have been referred.

8. It is no doubt true that though the workman was disengaged in May, 1998 he approached the Conciliation Officer only in 2007 but there is no limitation within which an aggrieved workman is bound to espouse his cause before the Conciliation Officer. The Authorities after considering the nature of the case set up by the workman have entertained it after condoning the delay. Merely because a delay of about nine years has been condoned, this Court while sitting under Article 226 would be very slow to interfere unless the action prejudices the case of the establishment. It is evident from the record that the delay did not in any way hamper the petitioner to contest the case before the Tribunal and in fact it also filed documents in support of his case. It is not their case that they were handicapped in contesting the case due to delay as records were weeded out. Thus, on these facts, the Court is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to quash the award on this ground.

9. It is then urged that the Tribunal has illegally held that the respondents have admitted that the workman had continuously worked for 240 days. It is trite to say that the burden of proving continuous