IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10154 of 2003 1. LALAN GIRI son of Sri Narpati Puri, Resident of Village Chandpur, Belia, P.S. & P.O.-Jakkanpur, District- Patna. .............Petitioner. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. 2. The Desk Officer, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 3. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Patna. 4. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Maurya Lok Complex, Patna. 5. The Management of State Bank of India through its Chairman, State Bank of India, Administrative Building, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai. 6. The Chief General Manage, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, J.C. Road, Patna. 7. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna. ............Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Jha, Adv. For the Union of India :Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, C.G.C. For the State Bank of India :Mr. K.K. Sinha, Adv. ----------- 7/ 06.01.2011 Heard the parties. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of petitioner with a prayer for setting aside an order contained in a communication dated 16.08.2001 (Annexure-7) issued by respondent no. 2, whereby appropriate government has decided not to refer industrial dispute raised by the petitioner to the Labour court for adjudication on the ground of unusual and unexplained delay of 16 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was engaged on 01.04.1977 by the respondent State Bank of India, Main Branch, Patna on the post of orderly on daily wage basis and he continued to discharge his duties on the said post of orderly till April 1984, whereafter with effect from 01.05.1984, he was retrenched from service orally. 2 A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Bank, wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner was engaged by the Bank for discharging some work of casual nature for few hours or for few days, but that did not exceed 15 days in a month. It has been categorically stated that the petitioner did not work for 240 days in one calendar year, hence there is no question of infraction of section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the basis of pleadings, it has also been submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is not entitled for reemployment in terms of section 25 H of the Act. After having heard the parties at length and after considering the materials on record, this court further finds that by an earlier order dated 12.05.1999 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent no. 2, prayer for reference made under the Provisions of the Act made on behalf of the petitioner was rejected. Admittedly, the aforesaid order dated 12.05.1999 has not been challenged by the petitioner. It has attained its finality. It is apparent that though the order dated 12.05.1999 has attained its finality, but subsequently, on almost same grounds prayer was made on behalf of the petitioner for exercise of powers under section 10 of the Act for reference of Industrial Dispute to a Labour Court, which has been rejected by the order dated 16.08.2001 (Annexure-7), impugned herein. It is further apparent that alleged retrenchment of the petitioner had taken place in year 1984 and he made a prayer for reference after expiry of 16 years in the year 2000. Obviously, the claim of the petitioner is stale one. For the reasons recorded above, this court does not find 3 any legal infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the present petition stands dismissed. No cost. M.Rahman ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J )