IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.285 of 2009 SRI SUBASH GHOSH, S/O LATE HARICHARAN GHOSH, R/O AKHARAGHATGHAT ROAD, P.S. SARAIYAGANJ, DISTRICT-MUZAFFARPUR. -APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS CHARIMAN, CORPORATION CENTRE, MADAM CAMA ROAD, MUMBAI. 2. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, J.C. ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, MAIN BRANCH, MUZAFFARPUR. -RESPONDENTS 3 15.04.2009 The case of the appellant is that he worked as a Water Boy-cum-Messenger in the respondent Bank and he worked continuously from 1987 to 1994. There was an agreement with the respondent Bank and its employees Union for regularization of such employees and the Bank issued a Circular dated 06.4.1991 inviting applications from such persons. It is the case of the appellant that his case was not considered for regularization, as per scheme as he could not submit his application till the last date which was 2 20.9.1991 and the process for regularization was complete on 31.3.1997. He filed a writ petition in the Court only in 2004. Since he did not approach in time for regularization he did not get any benefit. Even his case in Court was dismissed as no evidence was shown that he responded in time on the Circular dated 6.4.1991. It is submitted by the appellant that he did continue service for seven years which was terminated after 1994 without complying with procedure under Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act. The appellant also contend that he was getting only Rs.10/- which was below minimum wages as was guaranteed under Article 23 of the Constitution of India. Appellant claims that his due wages were not paid for the period he worked. These matters, which require evidence on facts, cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is for the appellant to approach the Forum under Industrial Dispute Act, as required under law. The pendency of the writ application and the appeal shall not be considered as delay in moving the machinery under the Industrial Dispute Act. 3 With the above observation, we dismiss the appeal. (J.B. Koshy, CJ.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) AAhmad