D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) I.A. No. 7199 of 2016 This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 107 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph no. 4 onwards, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 107 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. I.A. No. 7199 of 2016 is, hereby, allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 42 of 2016 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 2650 of 2009 dated 17th September, 2015, whereby, the writ petition preferred by respondent no.2 Management against the order passed by the Presiding officer, Labour Court, Ranchi/Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi (Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi as per learned counsel for the appellant and Labour Court, Ranchi as per learned counsel for respondent no.2) in M.J. Case No. 4 of 2007 dated 28th August, 2008, which was quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that whenever a workman prefers an application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the claim raised by such applicant ought to have been either adjudicated upon or there must be a crystallized right vested in the applicant. This situation was accepted and, hence, the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi/Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi in M.J. Case No. 4 of 2007 dated 28th August, 2008 was quashed and aside in the writ petition preferred by respondent no.2 Management and, hence, original workman has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal. R E A S O N S:
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original applicant of application under Section 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act) had preferred an application being M.J. Case No. 4 of 2007 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi/ Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi with the following claims: JUDGEMENT_41_LAWS(JHAR)9_2017_1.html
(3.) It further appears that these claims have been allowed by the Labour Court, Ranchi/Industrial Tribunal, Ranchi. The aforesaid claims were never preexisting. These claims were not accepted by the respondent. The aforesaid claims of this appellant were never settled by any agreement. The rights which are claimed by this appellant are never adjudicated upon by any competent Court. These claims, of the appellant, were in belligerent stage.;