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. Dilip ( R. M. Doshit, CJ) ( Jyoti Saran, J)