IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.482 of 2008 ***** NAVIN KUMAR, Late Lakhan Mahto resident of Village- Harshankarpur Baghauni, Police Station-Tajpur, District-Samastipur ……. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Finance Commissioner, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. The Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Agriculture Production Commissioner, at present known as Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Vkash Bhawan, Baily Road, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Administrator, Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Bhawan, Baily Road, Police Station- Sri Krishnapuri, District-Patna. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special, Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (abolished), Tajpur, District-Samastipur. ……Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Appellants : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate ---------------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal --------- Dated, the 24th September, 2008. The letters patent appeal is not only frivolous and misconceived but also devoid of any substance. The appellant is an unsuccessful petitioner. He challenged the order of termination dated 1st November, 2006 being violative of section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Single Judge was of the view that as to - 2 - whether there was violation of Section 25F or not, has to be examined by the Labour Court, upon an industrial dispute being raised. Accordingly, the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 30th April, 2007. Aggrieved by the said order the present appellant preferred letters patent appeal, which came to be dismissed by the Division Bench on 11th July, 2007. However, a liberty was granted to the appellant to apply for review of the order dated 30th April, 2007. In pursuance of the liberty granted by the Division Bench the appellant applied before the Single Judge for reviewing the order dated 30th April, 2007. The review application has been rejected by the Single Judge on 13th May, 2008. Against this order, the present appeal has been preferred. 2. There is no challenge to the order dated 30th April, 2007, whereby writ petition was dismissed, in the present appeal. It could not have been because the letters patent appeal preferred against that order came to be rejected by the Division Bench on 11th July, 2007. In so far as review application is concerned, the Single Judge found that there was no error in the order dated 30th April, 2007 justifying its review. The order of the Single Judge cannot be faulted. It has been often held that matter relating to violation of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has to be raised by way of an industrial dispute and has to be determined by industrial adjudication and such issue ordinarily cannot be a subject matter of consideration in the high prerogative jurisdiction. In this view of the - 3 - matter, rejection of review application by the Single Judge cannot be faulted. 3. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-