R. RAMANUJAM, J.

(1) THESE three writ appeals are disposed of by this common order. The only prayer made by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation is that the respondents in these writ appeals were removed between the period 1985 and 1991 though they were reinstated between 1996 and 1998, the benefit of giving them notional increments does not arise for the reason that the Labour Court has not awarded them the attendant benefits.

(2) THE respondents herein filed writ petitions before this Court assailing the action of the appellant in not granting them the notional increments.

(3) THERE is no gainsaying that it is well established by umpteen numbers of judgments that where the Labour Court has granted continuity of service the employees are entitled to notional increments resulting in financial benefit from the date of the award.

(4) THERE is no delay or laches in approaching this Court. All the respondents have approached well within three to five years. The delay is not such as inordinate delay on the ground of which the relief may be denied to the respondents. In the case cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant the party approached the Court after lapse of 11 years and, therefore, the relief for payment of arrears was restricted to three years and two months. Here the respondents have approached the Court almost within a reasonable period even within the standards of limitation provided by the Limitation Act. Limitation cannot be strictly applied and laches have to be considered by taking into consideration various factors literacy, being a member of an unorganised labour. When a worker has suffered for eight years from 1988 to 1996 without a job in a hunger stricken country, we find no ground to decline the relief to the respondents. Seeking dismissal of writ petition on the ground of laches is not a legal right of the appellant. It is a judicial discretion to be exercised in the facts and circumstances of each case. Laches bars the remedy but not the right. The learned single Judge has rightly invoiced the discretionary writ jurisdiction in granting the relief to the respondents.

(5) WE find no perversity in the impugned order. We find no ground to interfere in the appeals. Hence, the writ appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.