IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.644 of 2008 SHIVDHARI MANDAL Versus BHOLA SINGH ----------- 6. 27.4.2009 Heard counsel for the appellant. For the reasons mentioned in I.A.No. 2348/2009 the same is allowed and the delay in filing of this miscellaneous appeal is hereby condoned. Coming to the merits of this case, this Court would find that the Labour Court has not only analyzed all the evidence on record but has also gone into the question that the claim of accident on 16.4.1993 was sought to be reported to the police on 21.5.1993 and therefore, the police report at least did not support the alleged accident. As a matter of fact the Labour Court has considered the admission of the appellant on Ext. ‘F’, a document dated 21.2.1994 containing the signature of Anil Kumar Singh, Baldeo Prasad Singh and Shyam Prasad Singh, wherein the appellant had not only accepted that he had filed case for claiming compensation under the Workman Compensation Act under some instigation but 2 he was going to withdraw the same. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that this document was not admitted by the appellant in course of his examination-in-chief/ cross-examination but then counsel could not point out any anomaly in the evidence of Anil Kumar Singh, Baldeo Prasad Singh and Shyam Prasad Singh who have categorically supported Ext. ‘F’. The question as with regard to the appellant being employed by the respondent Bhola Singh in fact has also been looked into from yet another angle, inasmuch as the court has looked into the report of the Labour Officer dated 8.1.1993 wherein he has found name of seven other labours of Bhola Singh but there was nothing to show that that the appellant was also one of them. In such a situation when the court below has made a threadbare discussion of evidence on record, this Court would find no reason to interfere with the same and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/ 3