Mukul Mudgal, J.

Rule.

2. With the consent of the Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up today for final hearing.

3. There are two prayers made in the writ petition which read as follows:

“I. Issue an order, direction or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the award dated 20.11.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.IX in I.D.No.1729/94 (Old No.188/92) to the extent that it denies the Petitioner 50% of back wages.

II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to reinstate the Petitioner in service with continuity of service and full back wages payable from the date of illegal termination till date of reinstatement”.

As far as the first prayer is concerned for quashing the award dated 20th November 2002. As far as the second prayers is concerned for a mandamus seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

4. The two orders of this Court dated 4th August, 2003 and 19th September 2003 read as follows:

"4.8.2003

At the request of the learned Counsel for respondent No.1, list on 19th September 2003 so as to enable him to find out whether the impugned award had been challenged by the respondent No.1/MCD.

19.9.2003

Learned Counsel for the respondent is directed to inform this Court whether the award has been implemented or not, before the next date of hearing.

List the matter on 23rd October, 2003."

5. Today I have been informed by the learned Counsel, Vinay Sabharwal for respondent No.1 that the MCD is in the process of challenging the impugned Award dated 20th November, 2002 in this Court. However, there is only an avowed intention, which Mr. Sabharwal expresses by virtue of a written communication said to be received from his client, MCD. I am, however, concerned with the present pending today and clearly there is no challenge to the said award today. Accordingly, it is clear that there is no hindrance in the implementation of the impugned award dated 20th November 2002.

6. Mr. Sabharwal has submitted that as far as the implementation of the said award is concerned, the petitioners should be directed to adopt the remedy, available to him under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). I am of the view that since the services of the petitioner were terminated on 10th April, 1986 and he secured the said award only in the year 2002, to compel him to now adopt the implementation machinery of the would be grossly unjust, wholly unconscionable and in any case it can only be cited as an alternative remedy the existence of which is not a bar to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The facts and the circumstances of the case clearly indicate that this is a case where the petitioner should not be subjected after 17 years to take resort to the remedy of the execution of the award provided under the. This is clearly a case where the petitioner must be permitted to seek the writ jurisdiction of this Court directly. The fact that the petitioner/workman is unemployed from 1986 cannot be lost sight of in permitting the petitioner to seek resort to the writ jurisdiction from this Court.

7. Accordingly, a writ of mandamus will issue directing the respondent No.1 to implement the award dated 20th November, 2002 insofar as the reinstatement of the petitioner is concerned on or before 15th November, 2003.

8. In so far as the question of back wages is concerned, there are two courses available to this Court. One is to remand the matter back for determination afresh by the Labour Court whether the reduction of back wages to the extent of 50% was justified. Insofar as the relief of back wages is concerned, first reference was made on 6th January, 1988 upon a demand notice dated 5th August, 1987 relating to the termination of 10th April, 1986. The reference was again made as the name of the petitioner/workman was wrongly mentioned as “Vijender” instead of “Virender” and the correct reference was made only on 8th July, 1992. Therefore, it is clear that upto 8th July, 1992, no blame can be laid at the door of the MCD for delay in the disposal of the Reference. The period for back wages which is required, therefore, to be considered is only from 8th July, 1992 upto the date of the award. In the impugned award of the Labour Court only two paragraphs, mainly paras 16 and 18 dealt with the issue of back wages. The said paras 16 and 18 read as follows:

"16. Under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the period of limitation for raising an industrial dispute is not prescribed. Referring to the case laws as said earlier it has been held that if there is a delay on the part of the workman for raising an industrial dispute then in that circumstances the labour Court can consider the claim of the back wages which may or may not be awarded to the concerned workman but the claim petition of the workman is not barred.

18. As regards grant do relief to the workman is concerned, the workman Shri Virender S/o Shri Ved Ram is entitled for his reinstatement with continuity of service and all the other benefits, however, in the circumstances of the case back wages @ 50% of the last wages drawn which have been modified from time to time are also awarded with effect from 10.4.1986 onwards. Award is passed and reference is answered accordingly."

The Labour Court has directed the reduction of the wages upto 50% in the facts and circumstances of the case without indicating what the circumstances were. The only circumstance, which may be discernible from the record of the case, is the delay in the incorporation of the petitioner’s correct name in the reference. This factor has already been taken into account by this Court in noticing that the period for which back wages can be claimed will only be from 8th July, 1992 upto the date of the award. Accordingly, the award dated 20th November, 2002 insofar as it granted back wages upto 50% to the petitioner is set aside and is hereby remanded back to the Labour Court No.IX, Karkardooma, Delhi to dispose of the matter in accordance with law but after taking into account the fact that the back wages can be claimed only from 8th July, 1992. Parties to appear before the Labour Court on 15th December, 2003 for directions. Labour Court is directed to dispose of the matter in the above terms as expeditiously as possible and not later than 31st December, 2004.

9. Mr. Sabharwal has submitted that the mandamus issued today should not come in the way of his challenging the impugned award dated 20th November, 2002. If as and when the writ petition is filed by the MCD, this plea will be considered.

10. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Writ Petition disposed of.