IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No. 1301 of 1995
In
CWJC No. 10932 of 1994
With
I.A. No. 1002 of 1997.
=================================================
1. Pramod Kumar @ Pramod Kumar Thakur, S/o Sri Bansi
Thakur, R/o Mohalla - Rashtriya Ganj, P.S. Phulwarisharif,
District - Patna
2. Sachidanand Acharya, son of Sri Ambika Prasad Acharya,
R/o makdumpur, P.O. Digha, Distt. Patna,
3. Mahendra Prasad Sharma, son of Sri Ram Das Mistri, R/o
Ramji Chak Chhota Digha, Bataganj, Distt. Patna,
4. Ramashish Yadav, son of late Bhola Rai, R/o Chakmousa,
P.S. Phulwarisharif, Distt. Patna,
5. Lal Babu Prasad, son of Rambali Singh, R/o Bodha Chak,
P.S. Phulwarisharif, District - Patna and
6. Gautam Pandey, son of Sahdeo Pandey, R/o Speed Craft
Labour Quarter, Patna ...... Appellants/Petitioners 1 to 6
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Labour Commissioner,
Department of Labour and Employment, Govt. of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna,
2. The Dy. Labour Commissioner, Labour Deptt., Govt. of Bihar,
Patna Division, Bailey Road, Patna,
3. The Speed Crafts Ltd. Through the Director, Layak Enclaves,
P.O. Sahay Nagar, Patna ,
4. The Manager, Speed Crafts, P.L.T., Layak Enclaves, P.O. Sahay
Nagar, Patna ........................................ Respondents.
=================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioners: Mr Prabhat Kr. Verma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC XVI.
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
2
HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
ORAL ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
8. 30.08.2010. Re. LPA No. 1301/1995 with IA No.1002/1997.
Interlocutory Application No. 1002/1997 is filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of
delay of 32 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent
Appeal.
Be it noted that the Letters Patent Appeal arises
from the judgment and order dated 12th July 1995 made by
the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 10932 of 1994. The
petitioners – workmen sought to challenge the decision of
the appropriate Government not to refer the industrial
dispute raised by the Union. The learned single Judge has
observed that pending the conciliation proceedings, the
Union and the Industry had arrived at a settlement. In
view of the said settlement, the question of referring the
industrial dispute did not arise. The learned single Judge
also observed, “It may be stated that the petitioners
have completely suppressed the aforementioned facts
and, therefore, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed
for suppression of material facts as well”.
Learned Advocate Mr Prabhat Kumar Verma
has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the
Union had lodged a Charter of Demands and dismissal of
six workmen was one of them. Although other issues were
settled, the question of dismissal of six workmen was not
settled.
3
Copy of the settlement produced on the record
suggests that it was a settlement in respect of the Charter
of Demands submitted by the Union. Dismissal of six
workmen on disciplinary grounds was also one of the
demands. Thus, prima facie, it appears that the settlement
was a comprehensive settlement in respect of the
demands; may be that some demands may not have been
accepted by the employer. Moreover, the aforesaid
settlement has not been challenged by any party.
We have also noted that though the Appeal has
been filed in the year 1995, the application under Section 5
of the Limitation Act was not filed for another two years
until 1997. After the application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, the same has not been pursued till today,
i.e., for 13 years.
In our opinion, the matter at dispute has now
become stale inasmuch as the subject matter of challenge
is the dismissal of the workmen on 30th March 1985. In all
probability, the workmen have reached the age of
superannuation or are nearing the age of superannuation.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Limitation
Application is rejected.
The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.
( R. M. Doshit, CJ)
Dilip ( Jyoti Saran, J)