- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2938 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.262 OF 2008 ... Indian Airlines Ltd. ...Appellants v/s. Shri V.N.Jalpur & Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.S.M.Dixit with Ms.Lancy D’souza i/b Vasanti Kunder & V.M.Parkar for the Appellant. Mr.M.B.Singh for the Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 1ST APRIL, 2009 - 2 - P.C.: 1. This Notice of Motion is taken out by the Appellant. The facts that are relevant for considering this Notice of Motion are that the Respondent No.1 was in the employment of the Indian Airlines Ltd. i.e. the Appellant. A departmental inquiry was started against him and an order of dismissal from service was served on him. As industrial dispute was pending, application for approval of the industrial tribunal was made. That application was disposed of by the tribunal. Approval was not granted. That order was challenged in this court by filing Writ Petition No.721 of 2005. This court rejected the petition by order dated 11th April, 2007. Paragraph 10 of the judgment of the learned single Judge, who rejected the petition, shows that the request was made for stay of the order of the High court. The learned single Judge obviously rejected the request because the request was absurd. After the judgment was pronounced, an application for certified copy of that judgment was filed. Certified copy was admittedly received on - 3 - 24th April, 2007. The Appeal has been filed in the month of May, 2008. Delay is of nearly a year. The only explanation given is that sanction of the Head Office at Delhi was required, that took time. Further sanction of Government of India was required, that took time. Therefore, appeal was not filed within time. 2. Any interim order that could have been operating during the pendency of Writ Petition came to an end on 11th April, 2007. For more than one year neither any appeal was filed nor the Appellant was asked to join the duty subject to the order that may be passed in appeal. Explanation that is given for inordinate delay of one year is obviously vague. No details are given, nothing is produced on record as to how the file moved, under what statutory or non-statutory instruments permission of Head Office is necessary, who in Head Office is empowered to grant the permission, why permission of Government of India is necessary, which authority of the Government of India is empowered to grant permission, when application for such permission was made. Nothing was disclosed. Picture revealed from the record that on one hand practically nothing was being done for challenging - 4 - the order of the tribunal and the learned single Judge confirming that order and on the other hand the order of the tribunal declining to approve the sanction was being flouted and not being implemented. By their conduct the Appellants have disentitled themselves to any relief which is in the discretion of the court. Looking at the conduct of the Appellant, in our opinion, delay is not liable to be condoned. Notice of Motion is, therefore, disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)