Kfe: HIGH COURT OF JXJDICATURE GHHATnSGARH; BILASPUR Sing^e Bench: Hoa'ble Slufl Satisli K. Agniliotri, J. W. P. Mo. 4053 of2003 Petitioners : Stateof Chhattisgarh, through the Supermtendiag Engmeer, Rural Engm.eering Semces, BUaspur & aaother Versus Respondents : Jairam Sahu, S/oShri Netrani Sahu & ofhers ShriAjay Dwwedi, pan.el lawyer for the petitioners. None for the respondents. ORALORDER (3"'April,2006) The respondentNo.l was daily wages worker and was assigned the work of Chowkidar/Watchiiian siuce 1.11.1988 and have been continuing in the same capacily tiU date. The circular dated 20.6.1991 issued by the General Administratipn Departm.ent of the GoveEainent prescribed that aU the daily wages einployees whd have beeu appointed before 13.12.1988 be consjdered for regularization. The respondent Nb. 1 was not regiilarized. Being aggrieved, he filed ah appUcation under Section 31(3) of the M.P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, in the Labour Court. 1 The Labour Court afiter having coasidered all fh.e faete aad hearing bofh ttte parties held that fhe respondent "•i^ Wfe^ No.l be classified as pernianentw.e.f.May 1989 and the respondent No.l be further given difference of wa^es from 27.9.1994 tffl 25.2.2002, when the Labour Court passed thc order. The Labour Court aUowed the difference ofwages keepiag ia view the fact fhat the application filed by respondeiit No.l was time barred for the period before 27.9.1994. Beiag aggrieved, the petitioner filed aa appeal before the Industrial Court Raiptir, being Appeal No. 133/MPIR/A-11/2002. The petitioner did not ffle any appUcation for condonation of delay. The Industrial Court having consideifc^ aU the facts and circumstaiices cam.e to fhe conclusion fhat fhe appeal was tune baTred,_Ss_appeal ought to have beea ffled wifhina period of30 days, under ProvMions of Section 65<2) ofM.P./C.G. Industrial Relations Act, 1960. Admittedly, the petitioner has not ffled any application for condonation of delay. It is weU settled pruiciple of law that no delay in prefemng appeal can be coadoned without proper appKcatiou for condonation ofdelay. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioners and have perused the records appended to fhe petition. There is no mfirmily or irregularity in applyiug provisions of law while rejecfmg the appeal gToundpfappealbeing tunebarred. on the l lBi ] iinilmiiFpi BBa^s c^r' 8. This Court cannot sit as an Appellate Courf to consider att the facts which appeared to bejyst aad proper and the findings is on the basis of suflBcient evidence recorded by fhe Labour Court. 9. This petition is ^ainst the disnussal of appeal on the ground of delay and fhe petitioner has not inade out any ground for condonation of delay before the AppeDate Court. 10. For the reasons stated-above, the petition is disxrussed. No order as to costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge