IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.M. No.3415 of 2011 in/and L.P.A. No.1223 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.11.2011 Smt. Lillo -----Appellant Vs. Government of India & another -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present:- Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the appellant. --- M.M. Kumar, Acg. C.J. 1. The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment dated 24.5.2010 rendered by learned Single Judge upholding the view of the State Government expressed in order dated 30.8.2006, declining the reference to the Labour Court sought by the appellant alleging that her termination was illegal. 2. The basic ground for declining the reference disclosed in the aforesaid order was the huge delay because the termination took place in the year 1998. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere because the order dated 30.8.2006, in addition to other reasons, was challenged in 2010 i.e. after more than 3 years and 9 months. There is no explanation for approaching this Court after such a huge delay. L.P.A. No.1223 of 2011 In fact, the delay would indicate that the appellant has been rehabilitated and did not require the aid of the Court. Even otherwise in law, such a huge delay cannot be overlooked. 3. Even this appeal has been filed after a delay of 301 days. Again the delay will fortify the aforesaid impression. 4. On account of the aforesaid reasons, this appeal fails along with the application. 5. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR ) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE November 01, 2011 ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ) ak JUDGE 2