IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1616 of 2009 1. Ram Swaroop Ram @ Rama Saroopa Rama, son of Late Moti Ram, Resident of village- Gobarsitha, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur. 2. Dahaur Mandal, son of Ganga Mandal, Resident of Village- Kharari, P.S.- Hathauri, District- Darbhanga. 3. Phool Yadav, son of Yugal Yadav, Resident of Village and P.S.- Hathauri, District- Darbhanga. 4. Bhola Das, son of Sri Ram Chandra Das, Resident of village- Marwara, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur. 5. Jeetu Paswan, son of Janak Paswan, Resident of Village- Ghoghraha, P.S.- Chakmais, P.O.- Jatmalpur, District- Samastipur. .... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner –cum- Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Samastipur. 3. The Executive Engineer, Flood Control Division, Darbhanga. 4. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Naya Tola, Muzaffarpur. .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 2.2.2009 Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh for the petitioners, and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ambashtha, learned assistant counsel to Additional Advocate General No.5. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure-11), passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Muzaffarpur, in Reference Case No.3 of 2000, whereby he has rejected the prayer to 2 recall the workmen’s witnesses, namely, Ram Swaroop Ram and others to prove certain documents and to be marked exhibits. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the petitioners had earlier moved this Court by preferring C.W.J.C. No.6524 of 2005, which was disposed of by order dated 16.8.2005 (Annexure-8), whereby the learned Labour Court was directed to dispose of the said Reference Case No.3 of 2000 within a period of four months. The petitioners’ application for recall of the witnesses has been rejected on the ground that they did not utilise the time properly which has resulted in needless delay in disposal of the reference case and would also be acting against the spirit of the High Court’s order to dispose of the reference case within the time frame. It appears to me that the petitioners (workmen) have not been vigilant in pursuing their cases before the learned Labour Court. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 3. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3