Judgment 1. The writ petition was filed challenging an award of the labour court, Bhagalpur. The award was made when conciliation proceedings failed. A reference was made to the labour court for adjudication. This was registered as reference case no. 10 of 1994. 2. The reference which was referred for adjudication was thus : "Whether the termination of serv ices of Shri Chandra Deep Yadav Gate man M/s Deep Prabha Cinema, Swami Vibeknand Path, Bhagalpur is proper. If not, what relief he is entitled to ?" 3. By the time the labour court had examined the matter, took the evidence, heard submissions of the parties, it came to the conclusion that the provision of) Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been violated, in effect, the award was that it was an illegal retrenchment, Consequentially re-instatement was the relief. 4. The submissions did not find acceptance by the learned Judge who decided the petition. The award of the labour court was upheld. Thus, the employer who runs a Cinema as an undertaking has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. The Court has perused the order on the writ petition dated 4 March, 2004. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant not satisfied with the order on the writ petition. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order on the writ petition. 6. The Court also has reservation whether a Letters Patent Appeal is so easily a relief which may be available particularly in matters relating to an employer-workman dispute arising out of labour disputes which have seen adjudication by a labour court or an industrial tribunal. A writ petition should be enough certificate on whatever be the finality on the award. Thus, if a Letters Patent Appeal were to be permitted so indiscriminately it will play up havoc with employer-workman relationships. Invariably, only the employer will be utilising this jurisdiction because he has the means to do. If the Letters Patent Appeal were to be admitted it will be the death knell of a worker. In the present case, the termination took place in 1992, an adjudication by the labour court was in 1999, and the writ petition was decided in 2004. If the Court were to admit the appeal then it is unlikely that the decision will come in the next five years with the court having constant shortage of Judges. In the present case, the termination took place in 1992, an adjudication by the labour court was in 1999, and the writ petition was decided in 2004. If the Court were to admit the appeal then it is unlikely that the decision will come in the next five years with the court having constant shortage of Judges. This was not the purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is replete with conciliation, settlement and an award on adjudication. 7. In the circumstances, it is the considered opinion of the Court that a Letters Patent Appeal ought not to be available in matters arising out of labour disputes which have resulted in an award. A two tiered structure has already examined the matter. 8. Dismissed. 9. Let a copy of this order be marked down to the Registrar General.