IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16666 of 2009 1. MADHU RAUT @ MADHU S/O LALKESHWR RAUT R/OVILL KISHUNPUR, P.S.NALANDA, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT null BAILEY ROAD, PATNA, BIHAR 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR PANCHAYAT RAJ GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE LABOUR SUPERINTENDENT DISTT- NALANDA 5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER DISTT- NALANDA 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK VENA, DISTT- NALANDA 7. RAMJEE PRASAD, EX- MUKHIYA- GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ S/O LATE RAMBALI PRASAD R/OVILL CHANDRA BIGHA, P.S.NALANDA, DISTT- NALANDA ----------- 2/ 06/12/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.4.2007 of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Authority under Payment of Wages Act which denies his claim for arrears of wages quantified at Rs.21,078.38. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the findings in paragraph 5 of the impugned order that the name of the petitioner did not figure in the chart of the persons whose wages were in issue is an error of record apparent from the report dated 23.8.2002 at Annexure-2 on the basis of which relief has been granted to six others. The name of the petitioner stood at Serial No.7. He has also produced before the Court a certified copy of the aforesaid order. He next submits that even the finding in - 2 - paragraph 6 that the claim of the petitioner was barred as being beyond one year statutory limitation also suffers from error of record inasmuch as his claims had been submitted on 23.8.2002 which was within the period of one year computed from 29.8.2001 when the petitioner started working for which wages are being claimed. If the petitioner files an application before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Authority under Payment of Wages Act within a maximum period of 30 days from today, let it be re-examined if the name of the petitioner figured in the list of seven persons with regard to whom a report dated 23.8.2002 was submitted or not. Prima facie, if the report dated 23.8.2002 contained the name of the petitioner then according to the recitals in paragraph 6 of the order that the petitioner was working from 29.8.2001, prima facie the issue of limitation does not appear to have been correctly decided. The order dated 16.4.2007 is accordingly set aside to be decided afresh in light of the aforesaid discussion after hearing all concerned, including respondent No.7, in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid directions. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)