14 years prior to their complaints. These complaints are not placed before this Court, but it appears from one of the letters of the first Respondent Company, which is on record, that all these workers were terminated sometime in 1984. One of the nine Petitioners, namely, Petitioner No.2, whose complaint is on record, was employed as a turner with the first Respondent Company and worked with it between 22 June 1973 and 21 February 1984. After having ceased to be in the employment of the Company from 21 February 1984, this particular complainant approached the Court with a complaint under the MRTU & PULP Act, alleging non-compliance with settlements of 1983 and 1985, as late as on 5 May 1997. Once again, as in the case of the companion petition, namely, Writ Petition No.7478 of 2000, there is no explanation for the delay. The impugned order of the Industrial Court passed commonly on the nine complaints of the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3511 of 2004, rejecting the complaints as time-barred, cannot, thus, be faulted on the ground of perversity or impossible conclusion. Even this writ petition lacks merits and the same ought to be dismissed.
