-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2008 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.2923 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 487 OF 1997 The Sub-Divisional Officer, Warna Development ) Sub-Division No.1, Sangli and others ).. Applicants Versus Narayan Shivaji Kadam and others ).. Respondents Mr A.P. Vanarse, Assistant Government Pleader, for the Applicants. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J. & A. P. DESHPANDE, J. DATE: 9TH JULY 2008. P.C. Labour Court, Sangli vide its Award dated 5th July 1986 held that the services of the workmen were wrongly terminated with effect from 1st July 1986 and thus granted reinstatement with continuity of service. The correctness of this Award was questioned in the Writ -2- Petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 19th September 2006 dismissed the Writ Petition and discharged the Rule. We may notice that the State of Maharashtra did not lead any evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court thus decided the matter on the basis of the evidence led by the workmen and recorded a finding of fact that the workmen had completed 240 days in service and the retrenchment compensation was not paid at the time of retrenching the workmen and dispensing with their services. The Department was not dissatisfied with its default of not leading its evidence before the Tribunal, even it did not make any attempt in the Writ Petition for permission to lead evidence and for remand of the matter. The learned Single Judge, therefore, vide impugned judgment dismissed the Writ Petition. 2. The present Appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation. There is delay of about 468 days in filing the Appeal. In the application for condonation of delay, no specific reasons have been stated for such inordinate delay. The delay is unexplained and unsubstantiated. All that is averred is that the procedures in the office of the Appellants took time resulting in delay of 468 days. In absence of -3- any specific explanation and in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vithu Gowari (Civil Application No.3200 of 2007 in First Appeal (Stamp) No.11231 of 2007 in L. A. R. No. 23 of 2002 decided on 26th June 2008, where, in similar circumstances, the Court declined to condone the delay. Following the reasons stated therein, we also decline to condone the delay of 468 days in filing the present Appeal. 3. A right is accrued in favour of the Respondents when the Appeal is not filed within limitation. Such right cannot be taken away by the Court in a routine manner and that too in a case where no circumstances, much less a sufficient cause is shown for condonation of the delay. Merely because the Appeal is preferred by the Government, per se would not entitled them for condonation of delay as a matter of right. As already noticed, in the Civil Application no reasons whatsoever have been stated which would constitute “sufficient cause” within the meaning of the expression. 4. For these reasons, we dismiss the Civil Application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Letters Patent Appeal does -4- not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Civil Application for condonation of delay, nothing survives in Civil Application (Stamp) No.2925 of 2008 and the same is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE A. P. DESHPANDE, J.