- (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 8.10.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 11150 of 2001) filed by respondent No.1 workman, challenging the Award of Labour Court, Faridabad, declining the reference sought by respondent No.1 workman against his termination was allowed and his termination was held to be unjustified and the appellant Management was directed to re-instate respondent No.1 workman with continuity of service and 25% back wages.
(2.) This appeal is barred by limitation as there is delay of 491 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has filed application (CM No. 3423-LPA of 2011) for condonation of delay, on the following grounds : "2. That the applicant has to obtain the sanction from the government for filing the appeal against the impugned order in this Hon'ble Court, therefore, the appeal could not be filed within the period of limitation and thus a delay of only 491 days arises without any fault on the part of the applicant. 3. That the applicant, therefore, could not file the appeal in time against the impugned judgment. The delay is bonafide and occurred due to the circumstances beyond the control of the applicant. There is no malafide or intentional delay on behalf of the applicant. Hence, immediately after receiving the sanction from the government, the applicant is filing the present appeal."
(3.) After notice, respondent No.1 workman has filed reply to this application stating therein that totally vague averments have been made with regard to the reasons for filing delayed appeal. In the application, it has not been mentioned as to when the copy of the judgment was applied for and when the case was sent to the Government for obtaining sanction and permission to file the appeal. In the reply, it has been stated that delay on the part of the applicant is not bonafide at all.;