IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.177 of 2009 Arvind Kumar, son of Late Kamata Prasad, R/O Quarter No.F- 3/20, Refinery Township Begusarai, Dist.Begusarai. Appellant. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Indian Oil corporation, Maurya Complex, Lody Road, New Delhi, 2. The Chairman, India Oil corporation, Mauray Complex, Lody Road, New Delhi 3. The Executive Director5, Barauni Refinery, Barauni, Begusarai 4. The Deputy Manager, Electrical, Barauni Refinery, Barauni, Begusarai 5. The Chief Engineer, Power and Electricity, Barauni Refinery, Barauni, Begusarai 6. The General Secretary, B.T.M.U, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, Barauni Refinery, Barauni, Begusarai- Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Vibhakar Tiwary For the respondents : None. ----- 3. 25.2.2009. Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.14257 of 2001 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Short facts, giving rise to the present application, are that the writ petitioner- appellant is an employee of Barauni Refinery of the Indian Oil Corporation. He was denied promotion in the year 1990 and its Union raised the dispute for the first time by demand letter dated 4.9.2000. On the basis of that, a conciliation proceeding was initiated in which the employer gave its reply. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, by its letter dated 9.5.2001, 2 submitted the failure Report to the Government of India. The Government of India declined to refer the dispute by its communication dated 7.8.2001 on the ground that although the cause of action arose in the year 1990, but the dispute is being raised at the fag end of the year 2000. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ application by the impugned order. Mr. Vibhakar Tiwary, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that many developments had taken place after the year 1990 and as such, the Government of India erred in refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Tiwary. Undisputedly, the Union raised the dispute for the first time on 4.9.2000 in respect of alleged dispute of unfair labour practice by denying promotion to the writ petitioner appellant in the year 1990 and it is in that context that the Assistant Labour Commissioner had submitted its failure report under Section 12(4) of the Industrial Dispute Act. The competent Government, i.e. the Government of India was required to take decision 3 on the aforesaid failure report. Admittedly the cause of action for the workman had accrued in the year 1990. Taking into account the inordinate delay, Government of India declined to refer the dispute and the learned Single Judge has affirmed the same. We do not found any error in the order impugned. We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed in limine. ahk (C. K. Prasad,ACJ) (Dharnidhar Jha)