IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.452 of 1998 Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director, Paribahan Bhawan, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna. ..... Appellant. Versus 1. Janardan Prasad Singh, Ex-Conductor, Patna depot, resident of Village- Bahadurpur, P.O. Gilani, District- Nalanda. 2. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna. 3. The State of Bihar. ... Respondents. ----------- 05- 20.07.2009 Heard Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents in spite of valid service of notice. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 6158 of 1996 (Bihar State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Janardan Prasad Singh and others), and is aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.1998, whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the issues are concluded by findings of facts recorded by the learned Labour Court. 2. Respondent no.1 herein was working as a Conductor in Vehicle No.BRA 9193. In a surprise raid on the high-way, he was found carrying 33, out of 64 passengers, without valid ticket. In view of the report submitted by the Divisional Traffic Manager, and after 2 concluding the departmental proceeding against him in accordance with law, his services were dispensed with by order dated 22.12.1964. The workman raised industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Patna vide notification dated 24.3.1990, of the Government of Bihar in the Department of Labour Employment and Training. The terms of reference were as follows: “Whether the termination of services of Shri Janardan Pd. Singh, Ex-conductor, Bihar State Road Transport Corporation is proper and justified? If not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief?”g 3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective cases in the Tribunal, the reference was answered in favour of the workman, and the order of dismissal was set aside. The Corporation preferred writ petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant. It appears that the workman had admitted the lapse before the learned enquiry officer. Secondly, the reference was made after lapse of 26 years of the order of dismissal from service. It is 3 manifest on the face of the record that the workman raised a stale claim and could not have been adjudicated after a lapse of 26 years. In that view of the matter, we do not feel the necessity of considering the other submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant on the merits of the matter. We are supported by the following judgments of the Supreme Court: (i) A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 1217 (M/s. Shalimar Works Limited Vs. Their Workmen) (ii) (2000)2 S.C.C. 455 (NEDUGADI BANK LTD. VS. K.P. MADHAVANKUTTY AND OTHERS). 5. In that view of the matter, the award dated 16.9.1995, passed by the learned Labour Court, in Reference Case No.14 of 1990, as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, are hereby set aside. 6. The appeal is allowed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Jyoti Saran, J.) S.K.Pathak/