2026:JHHC:18912-DB -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI L.P.A. No. 498 of 2025 Bipendra Nath Pandey, aged about 24 years, son of Late S.K. Pandey, having his resident and office at Sendra Bansjora Colliery, P.O. and P.S. Bansjora, Dist. Dhanbad. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. The Union of India, through Secretary Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, P.O.-Shram Shakti Bhawan, P.S. Shram Shakti Bhawan. 2. The Section Officer, M.K. Singh, Ministry of Labour/Shram Mantralaya, New Delhi, P.O.-Shram Shakti Bhawan, P.S. Shram Shakti Bhawan. 3. M/s Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. through its General Manager, Sijua Area, P.O. Sijua, P.S. Sijua Dist. Dhanbad. ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Suraj Singh, Advocate. Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate. For the UOI : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate. Mr. Parth Sarthi, Advocate. For the BCCL : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate. Mr. Ankit Vishal, Advocate. --------- 02/Dated: 29.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. I.A. No. 11201 of 2025 seeks condonation of delay of 392 days in filing the accompanying appeal against the learned Single Judge’s order dated 30.04.2024 dismissing W.P. (L) No. 2603 of 2019. 3. W.P. (L) No. 2603 of 2019 was instituted by one Bipendra Nath Pandey claiming to be the officer of the Union espousing the cause of the dependents of Late Habu Mahto who expired on 19.05.1990. The claims of the dependants relate to compassionate appointment or monetary benefits in lieu of compassionate appointment on account of the demise of Late Habu Mahto on 19.05.1990 4. Admittedly, after Habu Mahto expired on 19.05.1990, the union raised a dispute regarding the alleged failure to grant compassionate appointments or the non-payment of dues in lieu thereof only on 2026:JHHC:18912-DB -2- 22.06.2016, i.e., after an unprecedented and unexplained delay of 26 years. 5. After the conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government declined to refer the matter under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the grounds of delay and laches. This decision was challenged in W.P. (L) No. 2603 of 2019, which has since been dismissed. 6. The only reason to explain this 392-day delay is that the appellant, who is purportedly the officer of the union, contacted his advocate on 01.07.2025, i.e., almost 15 months after the impugned order dated 30.04.2024 was passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. The appellant claims to be a union office bearer, but does not even bother to contact his advocate for about 15 months; therefore, there is no sufficient cause shown to explain this delay. The I.A. does not even state that the office bearer was prevented from contacting his advocate for almost 15 months. A simple statement that he contacted his advocate after 15 months does not constitute either an explanation or sufficient cause. At least in a matter where the dispute was raised almost 26 years after the demise of Late Habu Mahto, seeking the benefits of compassionate appointment or monetary benefits in lieu thereof, the office-bearer of the union should have been much more diligent. 8. The argument that the law does not provide a limitation period to raise an industrial dispute only means that such a dispute must be raised within a reasonable period, and certainly not after an unprecedented and unexplained delay of 26 years. Even the decisions cited on behalf of the Appellant before the Learned single Judge say so. In any event, such a contention relating to the merits of the matter 2026:JHHC:18912-DB -3- cannot be considered without the Petitioner overcoming the limitation bar. 9. The Respondents urged that the Petitioner lacked locus and that the Petition and Appeal were not properly instituted. But there is no necessity to address such issues because even if they are held against the Respondents, no case is made out to condone the delay in filing this Appeal. 10. Accordingly, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause has been shown. Therefore, we decline to condone the delay and dismiss I.A. No.11201 of 2025. Consequently, the accompanying appeal would not survive and is dismissed. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) 29.06.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/AKT Uploaded on 01.07.2026