J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THE challenge in this Letters Patent appeal by invocation of Clause 15 of the letters Patent Act, is against the judgment and order dated February 23, 1998 rendered by the learned single Judge in Special Civil application No. 3691 of 1997, whereby a challenge against the award of the Labour court, confirmed by the Industrial Court came to be dismissed on two main grounds reiterated before us without any success to lead us to make departure from the view taken by the learned single judge and supported by detailed reasons. ( 2 ) IT is really a travesty of justice that the employees of respondents-Textile Labour association have yet not been able to conclude the judicial proceedings despite an agreement entered into between the parties as early as on may 24, 1983 and invocation of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court by filing an Application no. 859 of 1984 which came to be decided almost after a decade and on further challenge by the appellant before the Industrial Court in an Appeal No. 13 of 1994 which came to be dismissed on March 27, 1997 and further unsuccessfully raised a challenge by filing aforesaid writ petition which came to be decided on February 23, 1998 and we have not been able to understand as to why 1998 admission matter is coming up for admission hearing after so long in respect of demands made by the employees of their wages who have undergone long legal conduit pipe for getting justice, has yet not any certainty when it shall conclude. ( 3 ) THE grounds which were dealt with materially in the impugned judgment and according to the settled proposition of law, the appellate Court need not divulge and go on repeating the same grounds when the appellate forum broadly agrees with the ultimate view reached by the Court whose order or judgment is under challenge. ( 3 ) THE grounds which were dealt with materially in the impugned judgment and according to the settled proposition of law, the appellate Court need not divulge and go on repeating the same grounds when the appellate forum broadly agrees with the ultimate view reached by the Court whose order or judgment is under challenge. After having taken into consideration the rival submissions on both the sides dispassionately and the text, context and the textures of the impugned judgment and order, special facts and circumstances obtainable in the case on hand from the record and celebrated proposition of law, we are satisfied that the ultimate conclusion recorded by the learned single judge after taking into consideration all the relevant materials and circumstances, facts and aspects is fully justified requiring no interference in exercise of powers under Clause 15 of the Letters patent. Therefore one and only fate which this letters Patent Appeal deserves to be met with is dismissal at the admission stage. Accordingly, it is dismissed with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 3000/- ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents has rightly submitted that in view of the long drawn legal battle, the workers who are the members of the Textile Labour Association who have been deprived of their legitimate wages for the long time, must be directed to be paid immediately. Considering the submissions on this count, the appellant is directed to pay and disburse the amount due and payable within a period of eight weeks. ( 5 ) AT this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted for stay of our order for a reasonable time so as to afford the appellant an opportunity of availing further legal remedy. This submission is countered by the learned counsel of the respondents- workers, who are the members of the association, inter alia contending that out of only four beneficiaries of the award, which came to be passed and confirmed in all forums, two employees have already lost their lives and since the time of eight weeks for disbursement is granted, no further time may be granted. Taking into consideration the overall factual spectrum, the relevant material on record and settled proposition of law, and the material factual profile emerging from the record of the present case and in view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not deem it expedient, to accept the request for stay, which is in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances and in a case which has already travelled through the legal process for more than 18 years. Therefore the request shall stand rejected. .